§
The noble Lord said: We come again to those stalwarts "may" and "shall". This is in relation to Clause 10 whereby conditions are to be imposed upon licences. Considering that subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the clause all say "shall" it seems to me that the clause gets away to a timid start by saying merely that a licence or certificate,
may contain such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit".
If one has those qualifying words,
as the Secretary of State thinks fit",
surely the Committee ought to be bold enough to insist upon "shall".

§
Let us suppose that the Secretary of State were to say—I cannot imagine him saying this, but under the subsection he could—"I think fit to impose certain conditions, but I am not going to because I do not have to since this provision says only that I 'may' if I think fit". That way would lie disaster for the welfare of the animals.

§
I submit that here of all places we need to say that if the Secretary of State thinks fit to impose conditions, he "shall" do so. I beg to move.

May I first of all say how much we miss the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, this evening and we look forward to his return to this Chamber in the new year.

In considering this amendment we should bear in mind the overall nature of the Bill. It is, as has been said elsewhere, essentially an enabling measure. The great part of the detail of the controls and their operation is to be spelt out elsewhere, notably in the Home Office guidance note. An important element of the controls will be the insertion of licence and certificate conditions. We have exceptionally included in Clause 10 a number of references to specific and very important standard licence or certificate conditions. We have done so in recognition of the importance which attaches to them, even though this is, as I have said, an enabling measure. However, this
736
amendment touches upon Clause 10(1), which provides the general power for the Secretary of State to insert licence or certificate conditions subject to the insertion of the specific conditions to which I have just referred.

Apart from these requirements, the Secretary of State has complete discretion. In the words of Clause 10(1) the licence or certificate,
may contain such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit".
The word "may" is surely exactly right here. We shall indeed be inserting conditions in all licences and certificates, but these will be selected and tailored to the individual circumstances. That is conveyed by the existing wording. In our view the suggested insertion of the word "shall" in place of the word "may" would detract from this clarity of expression. This will not be of assistance to those who may have to interpret the Act and will not alter the administration of the Act.

I hope that the noble Lord will accept the draftsman's opinion and will not press his amendment.

I hope that it may be appreciated that when we are legislating as well as we can in an Act which will be understood by those who are interpreting it we have also to consider the general public. Looking at this they would assume that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to give an unconditional licence. If he only "may" do it, it is possible that he may not, in which case the licence would be unconditional. We would all agree that that would be unthinkable. We could not imagine that the Secretary of State would do this; nonetheless he may. It is very difficult to commend this Bill to people who are extremely suspicious about it unless we substitute "shall" for "may".

I hope that I have made it clear that I do not doubt the good will. I have good will towards the Bill as it stands. But there will be many people who will grossly misinterpret the word "may". They will assume that Parliament is legislating for the possibility of unconditional licensing. That I think would be a great pity.

It appears to me that there cannot be an unconditional licence because if one has regard to Clause 10, one sees that it is subject to certain provisions. There are a minimum of two conditions set out in Clause 10(2)(a) and (b). It seems to me that the clause says that the Secretary of State may impose conditions additional to those in subsection (2)(a) and (b). Perhaps this is something the Minister can clarify.

I think that your Lordships' Committee will appreciate that the general public can see for themselves that the Secretary of State always includes conditions. The conditions state that a person "shall". I think therefore that that covers the point raised by the right reverend Prelate.

I cannot believe that any confusion would be caused to anyone if subsection (1) stated that a,
licence … shall contain such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit".737
The "as thinks fit" part gives him his let out if he wants one. However, I do not want to prolong this any further. I think that the right reverend Prelate is quite right—that critics of people dealing with laboratory animals will pick on points such as this and say, "The Secretary of State does not even have to impose conditions, and you can see that in the subsection". Nevertheless, I had better read what has been said and consider whether or not to come back to this at the next stage.

§
The noble Lord said: I beg to move. This part of Clause 10 contains the second set of conditions which all licences will have to contain. There is a history to Clause 10(2)(b) because in the second of the White Papers there was a reference to an inviolate termination condition. That reference in the White Paper was very warmly welcomed by many of those taking an interest in this legislation.

§
There is an equivalent condition at present imposed in licences that an animal must be painlessly killed if it is found to be suffering severe pain which is likely to endure. I think that it has been accepted by everyone that a condition of this kind would always be put in all licences. However, I think that there has been some concern that the wording of Clause 10(2)(b) does not make exactly clear that this is what the condition referred to in paragraph (b) will be about. The wording of Clause 10(2)(b) simply says:
a condition specifying circumstances in which a protected animal",
and so on.

A number of people had assumed that the wording used in the White Paper would be rather more closely followed to make clear that Clause 10(2)(b) was a condition which would always be imposed and which could not be breached in any circumstances. I am no expert at drafting, but it does not seem to me that the present wording in Clause 10(2)(b) precisely meets the undertaking given in the White Paper, but of course I may be wrong about that. I beg to move.

It seems to me that this amendment is ill-chosen on two grounds. First, "inviolate" is not the same as "inviolable". I am sorry to make a donnish point in this respect, but "inviolate" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is defined as, "Not violated; unbroken"; whereas "inviolable" is defined as, "Not to be violated". Therefore, it should read, "an inviolable termination condition". However, if it did read in that way, it would seem to be tautologous to ask that an inviolable termination condition should be imposed when one is legislating a moment later for the consequences of not abiding by that condition. We are in a sense saying that all licences should have this condition because of the possibility that it might be broken. To say that it shall have an inviolable termination condition and then to go on to say what will happen if it is broken seems to me to be tautologous but perhaps that is a frivolous approach to this particular point.

738
I take the point—and it is a serious one—that all licences should have this condition. Whether or not one calls it an inviolable termination condition does not seem to me to be important in terms of what is on the face of the legislation. However, I think that the phrase,
unless the Secretary of State considers that an exception is justified
is important in this clause.

The Earl of Halsbury

Can we get quite clear who is supposed to be doing the violating? Is it the experimenter? If so, he is in breach of his licence condition and he is subject to the penalties fixed in the Bill in any case. Inserting the word "inviolate" does not add anything to the situation. Alternatively, does it mean that the grantor of the licence—the Secretary of State—may not vary the terms of the licence, once it has been granted, to meet various circumstances? I am entirely at one with my noble friend Lord Adrian and would go even further. I do not believe that this adds anything whatever to the drafting of the Bill.

I would find it difficult to go along with my noble friend's amendment. He invites the Committee to pin the label "inviolate termination" to the condition imposed by Clause 10(2)(b). However, there is nothing in the amendment or in any other amendment before the Committee which really defines the significance of the word "inviolate". There is nothing to suggest that a breach of the inviolate condition will lead to graver consequences than a breach of the condition imposed by Clause 10(2)(a). I would accept that the label underlines the importance of the condition. But it is not all that helpful either because by the same token it tends to attach less significance to Clause 10(2)(a). However, as I understand it, the two provisions have a parity of significance.

I have to say that I rather sympathise with the idea that lies behind the amendment. Various Members of your Lordships' Committee have been longing for me to sympathise all day long, and now when I stand up to sympathise I do not seem to have the support of anyone else! Let me simply say that I think that the idea of the noble Lord's amendment was to make it absolutely clear and beyond doubt that when Clause 10(2)(b) speaks of a condition in every personal licence:
specifying circumstances in which a protected animal which is being or has been subjected to a regulated procedure must be immediately killed",
it means just that—a condition which may not be set aside for any reason whatever.

If an animal is suffering beyond a certain limit and there is no hope of alleviating the suffering it must—underlined—be killed regardless of the benefit or the importance of the procedure and regardless of whether or not its object has been achieved. A condition of that kind has been inserted in every relevant licence issued under the present law since 1912, following the recommendation of the Royal Commission which reported that year—and the relevant licences have been all licences except for those
739
which only permit work on animals under terminal anaesthesia.

A similar condition will be attached to all personal licences under the Bill, and that is what Clause 10(2)(b) is saying. It is referred to in paragraph 36 of the draft guidance note, and the suggested form of the condition itself is in Annexe C to the draft guidance note which lists the draft standard limitations and conditions in personal licences. Part B, Item 4, spells it out:
In all circumstances where a licensee is aware that an animal is in severe pain or severe distress which cannot be alleviated, he will ensure that the animal is painlessly killed forthwith".
As I have said, the amendment strives to make Clause 10(2)(b) signal even more clearly the binding nature of the licence condition. I am certainly sympathetic to that aim, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will appreciate—and this was borne out by the other comments which were made, perhaps notably by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury—that we shall certainly have to look very carefully at the implications that such a change would have for the Bill. We shall also consider bringing out the point more clearly in the guidance note.

I shall, therefore, look into the possibility of putting the point into the Bill at a later stage. Whether or not it should be "inviolable" or "inviolate" I shall leave to students of the English language, whose knowledge in that respect I must confess I cannot match. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord and, with the intention of looking at the matter, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Yes, I shall do so, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his positive response. I am sorry that my use of a phrase from a Government White Paper and that the language of a Government White Paper led me into such trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I should have learned my lesson from last week, when I quoted from a DHSS publication and got into trouble. What the noble Lord has said is very welcome.

More seriously, as the noble Lord knows, this is a point to which a great many people attach great significance. It is seen as being a crucial part of the package which the Bill represents. There is some worry that, while it is covered very adequately in the guidelines, it is not covered as explicitly as it could be on the face of the Bill. I am sure that my amendment is not the way to do it, and I am very grateful to the Government for saying that they will look at the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 8, line 6, at end insert—("(c) a condition prohibiting deliberate infliction of severe pain or distress.")

§
The noble Lord said: The thinking behind this amendment is that of the RSPCA and, incidentally, of Liberal Party policy. The RSPCA policy states that the RSPCA is opposed to all experiments or procedures which cause pain, suffering or distress.

§
Pain is at the centre of the whole argument that revolves around this Bill, and the Bill covers only those procedures which may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. However, the Bill itself scarcely deals with the question of pain. It is on this amendment that I want to raise the ethical question, which is that which the RSPCA has taken aboard, as to whether in fact we are entitled to inflict pain on animals for our own welfare. I say that we are not. However, I realise that this is a package Bill and a Bill which, in its way, is a very considerable step forward from anything that we have had before.

§
Therefore, the amendment which I have tabled and which was also tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—and we now have our names joined to it on this Marshalled List—is a moderation of the RSPCA's position, and merely seeks to prohibit pain and distress when these are severe and deliberate. We definitely think that such a condition should be in the Bill. I beg to move.

I have much sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said, but I thought that one of the principles of the guidelines was that the severity of the pain would be matched by the importance of the project, which seemed to me to be a very important aspect of the Bill. I think that many people would agree that there are situations in which it is appropriate to inflict pain on animals if it is for the greater good of human beings, provided that there are the safeguards which we discussed on Second Reading.

However, it would greatly help me if there could be some explanation of the kind of circumstances or the frequency of circumstances in which it would be necessary to inflict severe pain on an animal without anaesthesia. In making up my mind about the noble Lord's amendment, I would find it very helpful to have some assistance in trying to resolve the particular matter which I have raised.

The only problem I see in this amendment is that what can start as a thoroughly approved experiment and treatment of an animal can provide unexpected results in terms of pain and distress. The start of that treatment of the animal, the start of the experiment, the start of whatever was happening in the project, was deliberate, and the project was deliberately licensed. I am slightly worried whether this would then catch a situation when the result, the outturn in terms of the degree of pain or distress, became worse than everybody expected and had a right to expect. The word "deliberate" would, as I see it, still apply because the experiment had started. In cases such as this I want to avoid a lot of criticism and litigation in relation to people who are doing their best and who have been caught by the circumstances.

The Earl of Halsbury

I am disturbed by this amendment because it can easily be construed to place an embargo on research dedicated to the nature of pain. One of course anaesthetises animals, but it may be that a particular condition would be inhibited by the presence of anaesthesia. I hope your Lordships will remember that a very large number of people involved in traffic accidents die on the way to hospital from what are called "multiple injuries". They pass into a
741
state of shock and, although not one of those injuries would be sufficient to cause death, the multiplication of these injuries could do so, and very often does.

A state of shock can also be induced by severe burning. Current research on burning, for instance, burns an animal under anaesthesia and it then recovers into a state of shock. It is extremely difficult to be at all sure that the animal really ever knows from beginning to end what has happened to it. However, I believe that this amendment as it stands would place an embargo on that sort of research and that, however well-intentioned it may be, the amendment should be rethought from this point of view.

It would also make it difficult for research to be carried out on a number of virus diseases which are endemic among humans—for example, hepatitis B, lasser fever and even AIDS. These are diseases which certainly cause severe distress in animals, but, in order to investigate them and their course in humans, it may be necessary to infect animals with them. In that case anaesthesia would be inappropriate. It may not specifically be a question of pain, but it could well be construed as severe distress. I would not wish to see this condition on the face of the Bill if it prevented that kind of research.

The Earl of Selkirk

My noble friend Lord Halsbury disturbs me. He thinks that the examination of pain is to be part and parcel of the medical examination which takes place in a laboratory. I very much hope that that is not the case. I very much hope that the Home Secretary would not regard the examination of pain as a proper matter to be examined in this way. This is the deliberate causing of pain, which I should have thought would in any case be against the rules of this Bill.

As the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said, in the course of examination it may be that a pain will arise which was not expected. I can understand that. That is not the deliberate causing of pain; it is quite different. The pain is incidental and accidental. I should have thought that there was quite a lot to be said for this amendment because, if you like, it puts a limitation on the freedom of the Home Secretary. The whole of this Bill depends on the judgment of the Home Secretary, and nothing else. This puts a definite limit on the freedom which the Home Secretary can have. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will consider this because it is not altogether a matter which should be left open. Many people dislike the idea that it should be permitted deliberately to inflict as much pain as one cares to.

Somewhere in the Bill an inspector is given power to have an animal killed at once if he is satisfied that it is suffering acutely. Unfortunately, the inspectors cannot be everywhere the whole time. I would be unhappy to think of an animal being in a condition in which an inspector, if he were present, would have it killed at once on grounds of mercy but the animal continues to suffer because an inspector does not happen to be present. I believe that that is what might happen in this matter.

I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and indeed with my noble friend Lord Selkirk, that we should exercise control over the infliction of severe pain or distress. But provision to do so is already contained in our new arrangements. Clause 10(2)(b) provides that the conditions of a personal licence shall include:
a condition specifying circumstances in which a protected animal which is being or has been subjected to a regulation procedure must be immediately killed"—
That is a reference to the termination condition, details of which are set out in the standard personal licence conditions in the draft Home Office guidance notes, Annex C, Item B.4. This condition provides that where an animal is suffering severe pain or distress which cannot be alleviated, the personal licensee must ensure that it is painlessly killed forthwith.

9 p.m.

This goes wider than the deliberate infliction of severe pain or distress to which the amendment refers. It also encompasses the accidental infliction of this level of suffering. During the Second Reading debate on this Bill we discussed the fact that the Bill does not contain any attempt to describe levels of pain, levels of suffering and that sort of concept, because they cannot be defined with the necessary precision for an Act of Parliament. That is why the detailed arrangements for the termination condition, and also for the assessment of the severity banding of permissible procedures, are contained in the guidance notes.

While I understand the concern which lies behind this, I feel that these amendments would cut across those provisions and introduce into the Bill the concept of severe pain or distress which really cannot be quantified in a sufficiently accurate way to make sensible law. I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham will be reassured if he examines the provisions in the guidance notes that I mentioned, and may I refer him particularly to paragraph 54 at page 19 where he will get further reassurance?

As for the real concern of my noble friend Lord Selkirk that pain should not have to be suffered other than unavoidably, he was really answered most succinctly by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. May I give another example which I hope will reassure him? Pain has to be examined—and again we come in to the question of how you describe and quantify pain—in order to develop newer and better anaesthetics. The reaction to a certain stimulus applied to you at a certain point during anaesthesia is a necessary way of discovering how well an anaesthetic works. The difficulty comes with going in legislation into the detail of precisely what that severe pain is.

I think that my noble friend will be reassured too when he reads the last part of the paragraph to which I referred the right reverend Prelate. It says in brackets at the end—and I am cutting this short—
because of background knowledge of the material to be tested or because of termination of the procedure (which may involve killing the animal) at the onset of pre-determined signs of an adverse reaction in the animal.
The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, also brought out the question of disease. I think that too is relevant.

743
I assure the Committee that we are well aware of the difficulties which lie in this particular problem. They really are not solved by putting it into the Bill in the way the noble Lord suggests. Having studied the guidance notes I hope that he will feel reassured.

I have the feeling from this short debate that in fact the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and I would go rather further than the Bill intends to go. But it has been an interesting and informative debate, and I think some of the references which have been quoted are matters which I, for one—and I daresay the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk agrees—would like to look at further. For my part, although I think this will be the first of my amendments which I may want to bring back at a later stage, nevertheless at this moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 8, line 8, after ("justified") insert ("but so that no exception may be made in the case of dogs and cats").

§
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, which deals with the use of cats and dogs. Under this part of Clause 10 it is possible for the Secretary of State to insist that animals used for the purposes of the Bill are supplied by a regulated establishment, but there can be exceptions made to that. My amendment would have the effect of not allowing the Secretary of State to make an exception in the case of cats and dogs. In other words, all cats and dogs used for experimental purposes in future would have to come from designated breeding and supplying establishments which are licensed under Clause 7 of the Bill.

§
I do not suggest this amendment because I believe that there are some grounds in terms of animal welfare so far as cats and dogs are concerned which do not apply to, for example, primates, but because of public concern. There is widespread public concern that dogs and cats which are lost are picked up off the street and subsequently supplied by unscrupulous dealers for use in scientific procedures.

§
One of the main reasons why the licensing procedure under Clause 7 is so welcome is that breeding and supplying establishments will now be under the control of the Home Secretary and that unscrupulous dealers should no longer be in operation at all. Of course in a perfect world the Act will work perfectly and all breeding and supplying establishments will be run by perfect people who obey the law in every respect. Unfortunately the real world does not work like that. There is a real fear among many people that it will still be possible, if dogs and cats can be supplied for purposes under the Bill other than from a licensed establishment, they will still be taken from the street or stolen and supplied in that way and that family pets will end up being experimented on.

§
I do not pretend at the moment that this happens in a large number of cases (although there is substantial concern) and I accept that under the Bill as drafted there will be a large amount of tightening up. But I think that that concern will still exist, and I still think
744
that the possibility of unscrupulous people taking pet animals which are lost and supplying them for experimental purposes will be there. If this amendment were made, that would no longer be possible. The possibilities would not arise and a great deal of public concern, some of it, I am sure, based on genuine cases, would be eliminated. For that reason the amendment should be welcomed by all those involved, whether on the scientific experimental and research side or the animal welfare side. I beg to move.

This is a very important amendment, and I hope that the Minister will consider it in a favourable light. It is, as my noble friend Lord Melchett has said, important from the point of view of safeguarding the interests of stray dogs and cats. Though, as he said, it does not happen very often, it does happen that they have found their way to laboratories. Also it will contain the anxieties of our enormous pet-owning public. I can vouch for that anxiety because we have a spaniel puppy and my daughter takes her for a walk about twice a day to the local park, where she meets a club of mainly rather old ladies who also walk their dogs. It took only about two days of her taking the dog for a walk to come back with this horrifying story. She had been warned by the other dog owners that on no account should she let her puppy go because otherwise this dear little spaniel puppy would end up in a laboratory.

It is no good the Minister shaking his head, because the worry does exist. People are worried. The RSPCA is worried about this, and no one could call the RSPCA a violent, extreme group. This is a change that it would like to see being made in the Bill from the point of view both of protecting those few animals who have found their way to laboratories and, in particular, of removing that anxiety once and for all from all those (especially dog owners, but also cat owners) who feel that this is a possibility.

As it is felt that there is not an absolute prohibition in the Bill on the use of cats and dogs which are not bred for the purpose, then the amendment should be included.

The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, have voiced the concern which quite understandably many people feel about the source of animals used in experiments. The Government have always appreciated the need for the most rigorous control, which will provide the best reassurance that animals used in laboratories are obtained in a proper manner. That is why Clause 10 provides expressly for a condition to be attached to all project licences requiring the animals most commonly used in experiments, those listed in Schedule 2, to be obtained only from a breeding or supply establishment designated under the Bill, and thus subject to the Home Secretary's control.

There is, however, an exception provision, and I think this is what underlies the noble Lord's concern. The Secretary of State need not impose the condition if he considers an exception to be justified. This is where the noble Lord may feel there is a loophole, and that there is no reason to keep it open where dogs and cats are concerned. But there will undoubtedly be
745
some work which requires the use of a particular breed or strain of animal which cannot be obtained from any of the designated breeding or supplying establishments. I think that applies as much to dogs and cats as it does to other animals. I have seen examples where a strain of dog is being used because it has certain physical characteristics which would not normally be found in the ordinary experimental dog, and it would perhaps be unnecessary to have to go through the full panoply of organising a special breeding establishment just for the one-off creature. Thus it would be obtained in another way, and the Secretary of State would have the discretion to waive that usual requirement.

The source of all animals, however, will be very carefully controlled. All types of designated establishments, whether breeders, suppliers or users, will be required to keep the most detailed records of the source, use and disposal of all animals that come into their possession. This will make it impossible, even in the case of the categories of creature I have just described, to use a stolen or stray animal. I hope that will provide reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and her daughter. When I learned of it, it provided me with some reassurance, with one rather uncontrollable dog. The records will be open for inspection by the inspector, who will not hesitate to act if any irregularity is discovered. I hope that has given the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks.

I should like to ask the noble Lord just two questions. First, I have been told that there will he cases where a particular breed of dog is needed for an experiment. It might be an unusual dog—the example I was given was that of a collie—and that particular breed might not be available. There may possibly be no collies available from any of the establishments licensed under Clause 7. That is a limited kind of exception. If that was the only sort of exception made under this part of Clause 10, I think the worries would be considerably allayed.

But as the noble Lord will know there are some dogs, such as greyhounds which have finished their racing careers, for example, which are commonly made available for what would be regulated procedures under the Bill. If there was that sort of widespread use of a particular category of dog—not because of any special characteristics of the breed but simply because there were large numbers of animals available—and if exceptions were going to be made in those circumstances, I think my worries would remain.

So I am really asking the noble Lord this. Is this a typical example of the way the exception would be used or is it an exceptional example? In other words, would the exception clause in this part of the Bill only be used where there really was a specific need for a specific breed for a specific purpose, rather than on grounds that a lot of dogs were available from a particular source?

My second question is this. As I understood the noble Lord, he said that even where the exception was made there would still be a requirement for the person supplying the dog or cat—or any other species for that matter—to have kept these detailed records and for them to be available for inspection. I really just want
746
to clear that up in my own mind, and I apologise if I have not correctly followed what the noble Lord said.

The noble Lord referred to collies. I cannot say that I have any direct knowledge of collies, but the kinds of breeds we are considering here are greyhounds, to which he expressly referred, and perhaps one or two other breeds from time to time. Greyhounds have a particular characteristic, to do with some of their metabolic functions, which makes them particularly suited to certain types of work.

I can assure the noble Lord that the source of all animals will be controlled in the way I described. As I understand it, there is no danger of discarded or lost creatures ending up as animals used in experiments at all. The whole subject is one which naturally arouses considerable emotion and I believe that the safeguards which are introduced by this measure, in regard both to the generalised matter of animals and to the specific breeds which may occasionally be needed, are safeguards of a kind which should commend themselves to the noble Lord.

The Earl of Selkirk

May I ask my noble friend this. If someone steals a dog and sells it to an establishment, does that in fact constitute an offence which can be dealt with under this Bill?

We are now delving into the realms of another aspect of the criminal law, and I rather suspect it does; but under what statute the offence would be committed I do not quite know. I will endeavour to find out and let my noble friend know.

I think this is covered in Annexe E of the guidance notes, where it says in paragraph 7 that the person who has an establishment shall make sure that there is a proper record of all the animals and where they come from.

The Earl of Halsbury

May I make two observations on this? A director of research who used dogs or cats without authenticating their origin would need his head examining. He would be in right trouble from the start, because of the sentiments we have about these favoured pet animals. So the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is, as it were, tormenting himself with a quite imaginary situation.

There is also another reason. You must keep your animals healthy. You do not use dogs except for long-term experiments and you cannot have a lot of scrubby dogs off the street infecting the dogs you have already got in your laboratories. As so often in this subject, the very nature of the subject always operates in favour of the animal rather than in favour of the unscrupulous experimenter. I do not actually think
747
there are any unscrupulous experimenters. They are on far too dependent terms with the inspectors to risk their entire careers by an act of folly.

We now come to missing dogs and cats. To the best of my knowledge and belief,—

If the noble Earl is going to leave that particular point, may I interrupt him because I thought that when the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, referred to greyhounds it was said that greyhounds were used for a very short-term purpose and that it was possible, and indeed common practice, for greyhounds which had finished their racing careers to be sold for experimental purposes and not for long-term use; that is as I understood it.

The Earl of Halsbury

I must leave the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on that point. I have only been associated with the use of dogs on long-term experiments.

As regards missing dogs and cats, to the best of my knowledge and belief, cats are stolen for their fur and they end up in the fur trade, not in the laboratory. Dogs are stolen for dog meat and they end up inside other dogs and not in a laboratory. That, on my honour, is what I believe to be the true state of criminality in this field and I do feel that animal lovers are tormenting themselves to some extent with fantasies attributable to an industry that does not operate in the way they think it does.

Perhaps I may come back on one point that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, did not feel had been covered. May I, at the same time, also reassure my noble friend Lord Selkirk on the question of dogs being stolen and subsequently being used. That use evidently counts as handling stolen goods and would be prosecuted under the Theft Act 1968. On the question of greyhounds, and retired greyhounds at that, the noble Lord is right when he says that a greyhound retired from racing can be purchased for use in experiments, but the proviso is that the purchase must be lawful and the transaction has to be recorded.

I would also stress to the noble Lord the point which was made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that animals for experimental purposes have to be in very good health. I venture to suggest, without the detailed knowledge that the noble Earl has, that a greyhound retired from racing would not necessarily be in the sort of health which would lend it to experiments suitable for its age. I believe that the safeguards really are there.

The safeguards are there, with the exception which the Bill provides and which the Home Secretary will exercise, and I am afraid that I am not reassured. I was going a long way to being reassured by what the noble Lord said in his first answer to the amendment, when he gave, as an example of the way in which the exception would be used, a specific case. What he said was that there might be an experiment where a particular sort of dog was needed which was not available from a breeding or a supplying establishment. That would be a one-off example. But, as I understand it greyhounds are regularly used in experiments for particular purposes and that is why I imagine the noble Lord mentioned that breed. If they
748
are regularly used and there is a regular demand for them, it surely would become quite rapidly the case that a breeding and supplying establishment would be able to supply greyhounds. They might be more expensive than retired greyhounds, but, if there is a regular use for a particular species, surely this exceptional provision should not be used and they should be obtained from a breeding and supplying establishment licensed under the Bill. That is why I have become more concerned as the debate has gone on, rather than less.

The Earl of Halsbury

I do not want to take up too much time, but these retired working dogs very often suffer badly from arthritis—that is why they are retired—and they form valuable clinical material for study purposes. So a condition put into the Bill making it impossible to acquire them for study purposes would inhibit research into this scourge of later middle age, arthritis, or, in the case of younger people, rheumatoid arthritis.

The noble Lord really invited me to go back to my earlier answer. I do not propose to go through it all again, but I want to stress to him the fact that there is a need from time to time, as I think he acknowledges, to acquire animals which are not bred in establishments of this type, because they are not bred regularly for this sort of work in the same way that certain other breeds of animal are. I went on to say that the source of all animals would be subject to the very strictest controls, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has given another technical reason to the noble Lord to indicate how an old and retired animal, but nevertheless a useful one, could be used for clinical experimentation which would lead to the advancement of science. The noble Lord must accept the fact that retired greyhounds are a certain source. There will, no doubt, be other sources as well.

I really do not see that there need be too much emotion wrapped up in this. It is very easy to build an emotive scene over it. These animals are looked after with the greatest possible care. I do not think that the noble Lord ought to feel for one minute that the safeguards which I have described and which the Bill provides, not only for those bred together in one establishment but for all the other animals, need leave him with the fear that animals of all sorts are being supplied willy-nilly to extraordinary experimenters who do not treat them in the kindest and most humane way. I do not think that he need feel this concern quite to the extent that he does.

I am afraid that I do. The concern is not about what happens to the retired greyhound. I do have that concern, but that is not the point of the amendment, as I said quite clearly in introducing it. The point of the amendment is to allay the public concern about what happens to pet animals, dogs and cats, which are stolen. I followed the noble Lord's argument very carefully. As I see it, the Bill provides considerable safeguards against that which would go a very long way, if not all the way, to allaying that public concern, but with this exception in the second line of subection (3).

I do not want to get up and down too often on this, but the noble Lord has just been explaining to me his concerns about greyhounds being provided from racing establishments. He now tells me that his real concern is because they are stolen. This is something about which I hoped I had given a reassuring answer to my noble friend Lord Selkirk.

I was coming to the point on which the noble Lord has intervened. I am sorry if I am taking some time about it. My concern is that if the exception in subsection (3) is going to be exercised quite broadly—for example, to allow the existing trade in retired greyhounds, which would be a very wide exception as I understand it, and which would involve large numbers of dogs for routine procedures for which greyhounds are routinely used—it does not seem that that amounts to an exceptional use of a particular species for a particular purpose, but to a very general exception for a category of dog for routine procedures which go on regularly. If the exception is going to be exercised in that broad way in the case of greyhounds—we have hit upon that example, but it is only an example—I do not think this part of Clause 10 will serve to allay the genuine public concern. That is why I pursued the point about greyhounds and what happens to them.

If the noble Lord had been right in the first case and said that this exception in the second line will be exercised only very occasionally for particular dogs—as it were, individual animals—that would allay the public concern, but if it is going to be exercised for broad categories of animals I do not think it will. I think the concern will remain, and I think it will be right that the concern remains. After all, the noble Lord says that if they are stolen we shall be able to find out, but the noble Lord knows that it is not that easy to prove that somebody has stolen a dog, particularly if it has ended up being experimented on, even by kind experimenters, because the evidence is unlikely to be available. There is the problem of tracing the source of ownership, if there is no marking on the dog and no way of proving the dog did or did not belong to somebody. It is possible to have somebody who has the dog who can produce another witness who swears that they sold it to him, and so on.

I do not think the law is quite as easily enforceable in these cases as the noble Lord is suggesting, particularly if, as is widely suspected, the offences are committed by people who are breeding and keeping some dogs or cats but are also supplementing their supply by stealing some others. In those cases it becomes almost impossible except in very rare cases to prove the origin of the animal.

I do not think I can go over all the ground again, but I hope the noble Lord realises that the special use of greyhounds will in future have to be justified by reasons. That seems to me the very nature of the kind of licences that we are talking about. They are not used very extensively, but there are certain procedures for which they are the ideal animal, or as near as one can get to the ideal animal, upon which to work.

I do not think I can develop the theme any longer. If anybody is building up concern I think the noble
750
Lord is generating it himself within his own mind. I appreciate that he feels it very strongly, but I believe quite genuinely, as do all the experts who deal in this field, that there is not the risk. I wish to reassure the noble Lord and all those members of the public who no doubt are concerned that dogs can find themselves being experimented upon in this way that the most rigorous controls will apply but that to have a special establishment just for the occasional dog, or rather more than the occasional dog, as the noble Lord describes, is not really a proper way to approach the matter.

If the noble Lord thinks that forgery of records would be a problem, I do not think one can imagine that this amendment would help. The noble Lord has not raised that point, but is it certainly one that concerns some people. I simply leave him with the thought that all types of designated establishments—whether breeders, suppliers or users—will be required to keep the most detailed records. I hope that he is reassured by that.

I shall not prolong this debate, and I shall be withdrawing the amendment. However, I want to make a couple of remarks before I do so because I am still not satisfied.

As to the keeping of records, there has been extensive experience under protection of birds Acts as to the efficacy of record keeping by breeders who are also involved in the theft of young birds from the wild—falcons in particular. After many years' experience it has been found that it is only by close ringing of chicks, using a ring that cannot be removed and which cannot be put on long after birth, that it is possible to go even some way to enforcing the law against taking protected birds from the wild.

That kind of marking is not of course feasible in the case of dogs and cats. Unless every breeding establishment is inspected as and when puppies and kittens are born, I do not believe that it will be possible to devise an effective record-keeping system. I know that records will be kept and inspected, but I do not accept that they will do the job.

The second point I want to make—and I hope it is a more constructive one—is that it would help if at some point the Government found it possible, in the guidelines or elsewhere, to declare the grounds on which they would consider exercising this particular exception. The noble Lord has said that there will be particular cases where specific breeds of dogs or cats are needed. However, it would help if the Government added to that the condition that it should be unrealistic to expect a licensed breeding and supplying establishement to meet that need. If such was added it would go a long way to meet the concern that has been expressed.

The noble Lord the Minister has said that I am working myself up about this. With respect, I do not think that is fair comment. I have not gone into a number of notorious cases where establishments have been found to have been supplied with stolen pets. Such things have happened. Cases have been taken to court where that has been shown. Therefore, the concern that is felt is based on actual evidence and not
751
simply on what my noble friend's niece has been told by other dog owners. I will leave it at that. We shall have to return to this point at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 8, line 15 after ("knowledge") insert ("then provided such tasks are not liable to cause any animal any pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm").

§
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment to subsection (4). which deals with conditions of personal licences. It recognises that there must be assistants working upon non-technical tasks under the direction of the licence holder but not necessarily in his presence, because it does not state "in his presence". Presumably the subsection recognises that a researcher is a better researcher if he has time off, like other people, and goes to play a round of golf, if that is his fancy, leaving the laboratory in the charge of his assistants.

§
All this amendment does is to spell out in the Bill, as I believe it should be spelt out, that the tasks performed by the assistants, particularly in the absence of the licence holder, must not be tasks that are liable to cause any animal pain or suffering, and so on. That is important and it ought to be included in the subsection. I beg to move.

The Earl of Selkirk

I wonder how this provision works in with paragraph 13 of the code, where it states that there will be a new sort of chap who, so far as I know, is not mentioned in the statute as such. But it states:
if the assistant carries out, under the personal licensee's direction and if they are authorised by the personal licence, subordinate duties permitted".
Is this an additional licence which assistants are getting? There is no reference in the Bill dealing with this as far as I know. I wonder whether this is a subordinate licence which it is intended that the Home Secretary should issue to certain people. I should be interested to know whether that is so because this may be a useful career for certain types of laboratory assistant. Is it intended to formalise it in some way?

I suggest that this amendment goes much too far. Annexe B to the guidelines sets out the work which may be done by assistants, but much of it would be prevented by the words in this amendment. The assistant would be prevented from doing a great deal of it. That is the real danger. The amendment does not say,
liable to cause the animal any severe pain".
It says "any pain" or "distress".

The work of an assistant in preparing an animal for an operation will cause it distress, and that is obviously work which is done by an assistant. Handling the animal and preparing it for whatever experiment is intended will cause it distress. That is inevitable. It is not possible to have words like "any distress" governing the work of an assistant.

Again, referring to the guidelines in Annexe B and some of the things listed there, even under anaesthesia one does not know quite what is happening. In any
752
case, in many of these tasks set out in Annexe B it is impossible to assess what the reaction of the animal may be. The moment any of these reasonably harmless processes set out in Annexe B causes any distress it is against the law. I suggest that the noble Lord has gone much too far in his amendment, as it would make the use of assistants impossible.

Clause 10(4) of the Bill provides for the use, under tight control, of assistants to carry out a number of commonplace non-technical tasks in support of personal licensees. To help my noble friend Lord Selkirk, perhaps I may add that these assistants are authorised by the personal licence of the personal licence holder under clause 10(4).

The Government consider that the use of assistants in the manner envisaged in this clause will be an important and useful practice. The precise tasks which may be carried out are set out in Annexe B of the draft Home Office guidance note. I believe that it is important to the discussion of this amendment that the nature of these tasks should be made plain. I know that I should not take up too much of your Lordships' time but perhaps I may just detail them. It is important and it might provide the reassurance which both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, seek. They are as follows.

Acting in accordance with precise and specific instructions from a suitably authorised personal licence holder, who must remain within reach for assistance or advice if required: (i) offering of a diet of altered constitution; (ii) exposure to an environment (aquatic or atmospheric as appropriate to the species) of altered constitution; and (iii) administration of test substances by admixture with feed or drinking water. The list goes on to pairing, operating machinery, and so on. It then continues in (viii) and (ix) to describe how, in the presence of a suitably authorised personal licence holder, in animals under general anaesthesia which is to persist until death, the assistance may administer a test substance or withdraw blood through an established intravenous catheter; and, at a surgical operation carried out by a personal licence holder, render routine assistance with skin toilet, control of haemorrhage, hold retractors or carry out other equivalent duties.

To complement these details I should say that paragraph 13 of the draft guidance note describes the circumstances in which such tasks may be carried out by assistants. The use of assistants by a personal licence holder will have to be specifically authorised by his personal licence, as I have said, and where assistants are used the responsibilities of the personal licensee will be in no way reduced. Furthermore, the personal licensee will have to maintain close supervision of the work which is done by his assistants.

The use of assistants to carry out subaltern duties has been permitted for some time now. The provisions of Clause 10(4) of the Bill, allied with the relevant sections of the guidance notes, will provide valuable clarification and control, a much needed and sensible arrangement. The task which assistants will be able to carry out are simple. They are non-technical tasks and do not require anything like the expertise of a personal licensee. I think that those tasks which I have read out set that out quite clearly. Only licensees who are
753
judged suitable to arrange and supervise work to be done by assistants will be allowed to do so.

The effect of the amendment will be to limit the scope for employment of a great many assistants, which I think is a very real concern. I believe that the proposed arrangement as set out in the Bill and in these guidance notes provides a sensible balance between the use of less skilled personnel to carry out less demanding tasks and the need for control and supervision to safeguard the animals involved. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured. I really believe that it would be severely tightening the constraints under which people should operate in these experiments, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

I know that the Minister always does his best and listens with great sympathy to these amendments. My noble friend Lord Beaumont is in trouble with the Minister for having spoken about severe pain. I get into trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for talking about any pain. It is difficult to win.

I thought I had taken down these words from another part of the Bill. I must say I had thought—and I am sure that many people outside must think—that the tasks to be performed by assistants not requiring technical knowledge meant routine tasks, such as cleaning the cages, cleaning the floor and switching the heating on and off, and that sort of thing.

The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, does not agree with this and he will be able to make another speech about it if he so wishes, but that is what I supposed and that is what I imagined people outside would suppose. I imagined also that they would suppose that these routine tasks ought not, in the absence of the personal licence holder, ever to be tasks liable to cause any animal any pain or suffering because that must only be done under the direction and in the presence of the licence holder. That is what I supposed. But I shall go away and think about this matter and perhaps come back with an amendment on these lines, including perhaps the words "except in the presence of the licence holder". I think that the Minister wants to say another word.

I was trying to find a way of helping the noble Lord a little further. He has expressed his understanding of the Bill, thinking that assistants were the sort of people who cleaned out cages and so on, but it goes much wider than that. As I have said, the work is described in the guidance notes. There is something which I can undertake to do, if it would help the noble Lord, and that is to examine carefully what appears in the guidance notes and to see whether there is any scope for tightening this point up. I do not really feel that it can be put on the face of the Bill, but I willingly agree to look at the guidance notes further.

In reply to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, if he looks at what is said in the guidance notes he may find that in some respects this is more restrictive than the effect of his amendment would be. I should have thought that what the noble Lord has just said would be by far the best way of dealing with the concern which he feels.

The Earl of Halsbury

If the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is to reconsider the wording, will he take a look at the double usage of the word "any" in "any animal any pain"? Different species of animals are differentially subject to different pains in different parts of their body. It could be construed that if one found a species such that a given task caused it pain, one could not perform the same task on an animal of another species which did not cause it pain.

We had a lot of discussion on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill about what ought to go in the Bill and what ought to go in the guidelines. We are to discuss another amendment this evening on the Bill versus the guidelines. I accept the Minister's kind undertaking to have a look at the guidelines to see whether he is satisfied that what I am here seeking is dealt with in the guidelines, or, if not, can be dealt with by amending them, and, if not, he will accept my amendment—which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, still does not like and continues to mutter about, while not venturing to make a further speech. Having said all that, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§Lord Beaumont of Whitley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 51:
Page 8, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

§
The noble Lord said: On the sheet of groupings which some of your Lordships will have, Amendment No. 51 has been grouped together with Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 67, 68 and 70. Although there might be a case for separating the first three from the last three, I think that it probably would be for the benefit of the Committee and contribute to the brevity of our proceedings if we discussed them together because they all deal with the code of practice.

§Amendment No. 68: Page 14, line 5, leave out from ("and") to end and insert—
("which shall be subject to affirmative resolution in each House of Parliament. A breach of a code of practice shall be a ground for the variation or revocation of a licence or certificate under this Act.").

§
The noble Lord said: As I said, these five amendments have to do with the code of practice. That code has not yet been published and is not identical with the draft guidance. The first two amendments, Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, have the effect of making a breach of the code of practice one of the grounds on which,
A licence or certificate under this Act may be varied or revoked by the Secretary of State.".
That is simple and speaks for itself.

§
Amendments Nos. 67, 68 and 70 have the following effect on the codes of practice. They mean that the Secretary of State has a duty rather than a discretion to issue such codes of practice as to the care of animals used under the Bill. I should have thought that it is absolutely right that they should be published. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept that. They mean also that the Secretary of State is denied the discretion of merely approving codes of practice issued by other persons. Finally, they mean that the codes of practice will be subject to the safeguard of affirmative resolution of both Houses. Currently the Bill gives no legal standing to those codes of practice and they could be changed or abandoned at any time by the Secretary of State without the approval of Parliament. That is unsatisfactory. I beg to move.

If we are to speak to Amendment No. 67, it might be sensible to take Amendment No. 65 at the same time. The noble Lord did not mention it, but it covers much the same point. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, appears to be happy with that.
Amendment No. 65: Clause 21, page 13, line 41, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
I have my name to Amendment No. 67 and I strongly support it. I have nothing to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, except to stress the enormous importance of the codes of practice, which is already evident from our discussions during this Committee stage.

My further amendment, Amendment No. 65, would make it compulsory on the Secretary of State to publish information to serve as guidance with respect to the manner in which he proposes to exercise his power to grant licences and certificates. I am sure, once again, that the Secretary of State will actually publish such guidance. It is difficult to see how the procedures under the Bill could operate if he did not. I hope that making it clear that this is a necessity will not cause any problems with the Government.

The only forceful argument I can see in favour of making it an absolute condition is simply to remove any suspicion that there might be informal and secret guidance given to those applying for licences that was not made generally available to the public. I cannot see that happening, and I know that the Government do not intend it to happen, but that would be a potential danger that changing "may" to "shall" at the beginning of Clause 21 would overcome.

I gather that it is right to speak on Amendment No. 67 at this point. I understood the Minister to say at Second Reading that the Bill must be understood in connection with the guidelines that will become codes of practice. It will be difficult for the public if they have the Bill but do not necessarily have the codes of practice. I would have thought that it was really appropriate that they should have both. I cannot see what would be lost by accepting Amendment No. 67. It would certainly allay doubts in the minds of critics. I cannot see, on the other hand, that those who work this Bill (or Act, as it will become) will lose anything by allowing the amendment.

We are discussing now a group of changes designed to alter the provisions in Clause 21 relating to codes of practice and to insert in Clause 11 a requirement to vary or revoke the licences or certificates of those who breach such codes of practice. I can perhaps first deal with—

It is not too seriously impaired because I can leave out reference to that amendment and go on to the second or third amendment. I can perhaps pick up the right reverend Prelate's point about the codes of practice. As I understand it, they will be available for the public should they need them. I must confess that at this moment I am not clear in what way they will be available. They are at the moment in the discussion stage. They will be amended, no doubt, as a result of discussion on this Bill, and also because we are actively seeking comments upon them.

My feelings are not wholly allayed. If they will be issued, why can we not say in the Bill that they "shall" be issued? I do not really see the point that the Minister makes. If they will be available, presumably they will be issued. Why can we not say, therefore, that they "shall" be issued, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, wants in Amendment No. 67?

I should like, if I may, to come to Amendment No. 67 specifically in due course. Perhaps, then, I shall be able to make more encouraging noises to the right reverend Prelate. I was trying perhaps to jump ahead when I should not have done. The second and third amendments, Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, attempt to insert in Clause 11 a reference to breach of a provision in a code of practice under Clause 21. I hope that I have it right this time. Such eventualities are already catered for by Clause 11(b), which provides for variation or revocation (and I quote):
in any other case in which it appears to the Secretary of State appropriate to do so".
I hope that this will satisfy the noble Lord.

I can now turn, perhaps, to the related amendments to Clause 21, Amendments Nos. 67, 68 and 70. As in Clause 11, Amendment No. 67 replaces the word "may" by "shall". I have to say that I believe that a change of this sort would be undesirable. The Secretary of State should retain discretion to issue codes of practice, although I can confirm that it is our intention to ensure that a code of practice is made available. The codes will be available when published, before the Bill becomes an Act, and they can be obtained in the same way as the Bill, no doubt. I think the right reverend Prelate is still not convinced.

The right reverend Prelate referred me particularly to Amendment No. 67. But in the case of Amendment No. 67 the need to say that he "shall" publish would mean that the discretion of the Secretary of State to publish would be removed. At the same time, however, I explained to the right reverend Prelate that it is our firm intention to ensure that a code of practice is made available. The word "shall" is inappropriate in a situation where the Secretary of State has discretion as to the number and nature of the codes of practice to be issued.

758
I accept that this is a rather fine point of the draftsman. It is rather akin to the earlier amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, with which my noble friend Lord Davidson dealt. We are dealing with the—I hesitate to use the word "semantics" of the draftsman because I think that there is a real point behind it. I hope that I have been able to explain to the right reverend Prelate and to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that it is our firm intention to ensure that a code of practice is made available. But it would be technically wrong to do it in the way that the right reverend Prelate wishes.

The remaining amendments to Clause 21, Amendments Nos. 68 and 70, remove the power of the Secretary of State to approve codes of practice issued by other persons. I am not sure whether this was intentional, but we regard it as very deleterious. For example, it has been our hope that when the Royal Society's code of practice is drawn up we shall be able to approve it for issue to licensees. The same amendments also require that the issue of codes of practice is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and that breach of a code shall be grounds for variation or revocation of a licence or certificate.

Here again, we are confronted with a proposed change which goes against the spirit of the Bill and would cause great practical difficulties. The codes of practice which may be issued or approved will not be rigid rules to be followed slavishly. They will be a guide to good practice and a guide that can be adapted to fit the individual circumstances of work which will no doubt crop up.

Given the great variety of situations and ways in which animals are used for scientific or experimental purposes this could not be otherwise. And, in view of this, it would be completely wrong for a breach of a code to be automatic grounds for variation or revocation.

In addition, we envisage that codes of practice will be amended regularly to incorporate just the kinds of new ideas which—thank goodness—spring up regularly and adapt to the changing circumstances which we all want to see as science advances. To require every such change to be made through an order in Parliament would be to impose a wholly unwelcome and unnecessary burden upon your Lordships' House and, indeed, another place.

The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, spoke on Amendment No. 65. Here I have to say to the noble Lord that the situation is rather different and I think that I can be rather more encouraging. We firmly intend to issue guidance of the kind described in Clause 21(1). The circulation of the draft Home Office guidance note is evidence of that intent. The word "may", which is contained in Clause 21(1), adequately covers the point, but we are happy to accept the noble Lord's suggestion that it should be changed to "shall".

I am sorry that I am unable to help the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, any further. I hope that I have been able to reassure the right reverend Prelate and that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

As regards Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, I am to a certain extent
759
reassured by the fact that the Minister says that the point is covered by Clause 11(b). I have not heard any good reason why Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 should not be inserted as well. It seems to me that it would be reassuring to people and good for the public relations of the Bill—to put it at its very lowest—if those amendments were included.

However, I shall certainly not take the matter any further tonight and shall seek leave to withdraw those two amendments. However, at the same time, I ask the Minister—I do not ask him for an answer now—and his advisers to look at the matter again and maybe come to the conclusion that no harm would be done and maybe a little good would be done if the clause were amended in the way in which I have suggested.

I move on to Amendments Nos. 67, 68 and 70. I take the argument about the changes of the code of practice and, therefore, the undesirability of having it subject to affirmative resolution. I shall certainly not move those amendments when we come to them.

However, as regards Amendment No. 67, I am delighted that the noble Lord the Minister has accepted Lord Melchett's Amendment No. 65. I am totally baffled by the technicality which apparently stops him accepting my Amendment No. 67. I should like to reserve my position on that matter and to ask the noble Lord if he will write to me rather more fully on the point raised by Amendment No. 67.

§Lord Adrian moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 10, line 24, at end insert ("except where the further procedure is one in which the animal is subject throughout to general anaesthesia from which it is not allowed to recover,").

§
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is very limited, and I hope that we can deal with it relatively rapidly. The amendment concerns one special case of re-use. Clause 14(1) states that:
Where a protected animal—

(a) has been subjected to a series of regulated procedures for any purpose; and

(b) has been given a general anaesthetic for any of those procedures and allowed to recover consciousness,

it shall not be used for any further regulated procedures".
My amendment seeks to amend the last part of that provision by saying:
it shall not be used for any further regulated procedures except where the further procedure is one in which the animal is subject throughout to general anaesthesia from which it is not allowed to recover".

§
As the Bill is now worded, it would prevent the re-use of an animal which had to be put down and one could not use it for a terminal experiment; that is, a procedure involving anaesthesia from which the animal does not recover. From the animal's point of view, to be subjected to a terminal experiment of that kind seems to me—and one profoundly hopes that it
760
seems to the animal—to be exactly the same as one of the more humane methods of killing that animal; that is, giving it an anaesthetic with the dose being increased until the animal dies. Therefore, from the animal's point of view there is really no difference between its being used in a terminal experiment and being killed humanely by an excess of anaesthesia.

§
As it now stands, I believe that Clause 14(1) is potentially wasteful of animals if a terminal experiment is required to be carried out on an animal which has to be put down. This perhaps will not make a very large difference in animals and it may not be of major importance when dealing with many laboratory animals, such as rodents, though, if my amendment is allowed, it will reduce numbers.

§
However, I believe that on rare occasions, particularly when primates are used, if one has to be put down it would be wasteful not to obtain the maximum information from it, subject of course to the usual limitations of appropriate project licences justified to and granted by the Secretary of State. It appears to me to be an unnecessary limitation on the Secretary of State's discretion, and I suggest that it would be better to allow this exception and to indicate, in guidelines, the kind of circumstances in which this re-use might be allowed by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

I merely point out that this is covered by the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Vertebrate Animals, which the British Government support. Article 11(4)(a) uses almost the same words as are used in the noble Lord's amendment:
except where the further procedure is one in which the animal is subject throughout to general anaesthesia from which it is not allowed to recover".
That is fully in line with the Council of Europe convention to which we are a signatory.

Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, can reassure me about one point. As his amendment now stands, it seems to me possible that an animal might be kept under general anaesthesia for some time for a further project, and I believe that this would be repugnant to many of our ethical senses. I believe that an animal should be treated with respect and not be kept under general anaesthesia in that situation for a long time. I should like some reassurance as to what is intended by this addition to the Bill.

I should like to make one other point about this which worries me, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, could give me some advice. As I understand the effect of the amendment, if it is passed it would be possible for an animal, subject to a series of regulated procedures, then to be kept in a laboratory for some considerable period of time, perhaps even for a period of years, before the final experiment, subject to anaesthesia and termination which would be allowed by this amendment, was proceeded with. If I am right about that, it is a rather more dramatic change from the animal's point of view than I think the noble Lord suggested.

I had not directly considered the point about length of time. Some experiments under
761
anaesthesia go on for some considerable time, but presumably operations on humans go on for some considerable time, and the length of time of an operation is not particularly distressing if the anaesthesia is correctly applied. Most terminal experiments would be relatively brief, but undoubtedly they would be a little longer than the anaesthesia used to kill an animal humanely. That is certainly true. However, from the animal's point of view, I do not believe that this would be different.

As I understand it this Bill is essentially based on pain, distress, suffering and lasting harm, and the issue of the length of time that the animal is under anaesthesia is not something dealt with in the Bill at all.

May I explain to the Committee what I had in mind? I thought it might be possible that an animal was kept under anaesthesia for a week or so during a terminal experiment. When the noble Lord says "a longish time", I wonder whether he can be more explicit?

An hour, or hours; conceivably 24 hours, but not longer than that so far as I know. It would not be longer than the ordinary kind of terminal experiment to which animals are subject, anyway. From the point of view of Lord Melchett's question about keeping, they would, if kept, be subject to just the same kind of regulations as they are when kept in a laboratory before being experimented on or before being subjected to a series of procedures.

The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has assured the Committee that the clause as it stands will result in waste. The waste will not in any way promote the objects of the Bill. Waste in this area is to be deplored. In the University of London alone the capital cost of this Bill—and this is a hard figure—will be £4 million, and I reckon that the total cost for the country within universities will be about £10 million. That is the capital cost alone, to say nothing of the recurring costs of buying unnecessary animals whose additional purchase and additional use in laboratories will add nothing to the objectives of the Bill. The Minister has been so reasonable and so balanced in his judgments in discussions of the amendments that I wish to ask him whether he will reconsider this particular clause and look with some blessing on this amendment.

If Lord Adrian's amendment is accepted, the re-use of animals that we are talking about will be permitted but only once under terminal anaesthesia, and so far as the time is concerned I rather hope that the right reverend Prelate was reassured by what the noble Lord said.

Clause 14(1) was inserted in the Bill in fulfilment of the commitment given in this year's White Paper Scientific Procedures on Living Animals. The Government had earlier proposed that there should be permitted limited re-use of animals which had been given in anaesthetic and allowed to recover consciousness. That proposal in the 1983 White Paper was unfortunately widely misunderstood, and we have therefore decided to adopt the policy outlined in the second White Paper.

762
The present position under the 1876 Act is that there is a statutory requirement for animals which have been given a general anaesthetic, and allowed to recover consciousness, to be killed at the end of the experiment. This is clearly wasteful of animal life—as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, suggested—and because of the requirement many healthy animals are killed which could have been released, kept as pets, or continued life in some other fashion.

The question is how should the new Bill deal with the question of re-use so as to avoid the current wastefulness, but also to avoid repeated re-use? This is a general and understandable concern. The Government's proposals based upon the second White Paper and contained in Clause 14(1) drop the requirement to kill the animal. But re-use is still prohibited: surviving healthy animals which are not then killed must not be used again for experimental work.

The amendment before your Lordships' Committee in our view improves upon the position at least logically by allowing re-use under terminal anaesthesia. In this way there is no possibility of the animal being re-used more than once. Since during the second procedure it is under general anaesthetic from which it does not recover, it obviously experiences no pain whatever resulting from its re-use.

10.15 p.m.

The amendment should reduce the number of animals used in scientific or experimental procedures, and that is a wholly laudable objective and one trenchantly proposed and agreed by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris.

However, there are some difficulties associated with the amendment. It is what the Government originally proposed. The proposal in the first White Paper to allow the re-use of animals, but only under terminal anaesthesia, was criticised as a reduction from the controls in the 1876 Act. The numbers of animals involved would be quite small and in all the circumstances the Government thought it right to restore that total prohibition, but we are naturally willing to listen to views, such as those being expressed in this Committee stage.

My impression of the feeling of this discussion is that the Committee is broadly in favour of the principle of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. If your Lordships would like me to accept the principle of that amendment I shall, of course, do so. But I do not think that we should accept the amendment as it stands. There are one or two problems with it; there is no provision to ensure that the animal does not suffer some inconvenience during the period between recovery of consciousness after the first use and the administration of anaesthetic for the second. Thus an animal could be left, perhaps for several days, although Clause 15 would ensure that it was suffering no adverse effects while it waited, before being taken away and used for a second time. More generally, the amendment makes no arrangement for the control of the re-use itself, as well as the interval preceding it, and there is no possibility of refusing permission for re-use.

These difficulties could be overcome by inserting a provision similar to that in Clause 14(3) requiring the
763
specific consent of the Secretary of State before re-use. I have indicated that the Government are in sympathy with the intention. If the noble Lord is happy with that assurance, perhaps I can take it away and consider further what might be done.

§Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 11, line 22, after ("unless") insert ("in the presence of a qualified anaesthetist and").

§
The noble Lord said: This amendment would add the words
in the presence of a qualified anaesthetist and
after the reference to "blocking agent". When an animal is paralysed using neuromuscular blocking agents it can still experience pain and distress. Because it cannot move or cry it may appear to be anaesthetised and its lack of movement may enable the experiment to proceed. It is therefore highly desirable that to ensure that no major surgical experiment shall proceed on a conscious animal that neuromuscular blocking agents should be used only when the animal is also fully anaesthetised.

§
It is sometimes extremely difficult to distinguish between an anaesthetised animal and one which is merely paralysed. That is why a fully qualified anaesthetist's presence is required. It was for this reason that the RSPCA published a resolution in 1985 saying that a competent anaesthetist should be present at all major surgical experiments requiring the use of muscle relaxants to ensure that full anaesthesia is maintained throughout the procedure. My Lords, I beg to move.

I start by saying that I do understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, but I hope I shall be able to reassure him. The Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876 is in many respects an Act which provides great flexibility. However, it contains a very specific provision in respect of a neuromuscular blocking agent, prohibiting its use as an anaethetic. The Government recognise that it was concern about the potential of these agents for accidental or deliberate misuse which promoted the provision of the 1876 Act and that is why Clause 17(a) of the Bill reproduces it in an up-to-date form.

The effect of the amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Airedale and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, would be to require the presence of a qualified anaesthetist every time a neuromuscular blocking agent is used during a regulated procedure. Under this Bill and in contrast to the existing arrangements, the
764
administration of an anaesthetic would be a regulated procedure requiring an appropriate personal licence. Permission to administer an anaesthetic during a procedure where neuromuscular blocking agents are used will only be granted to licensees who are fully competent to achieve and maintain the appropriate level of anaesthesia.

Your Lordships will recall that under Clause 17(a) the use of neuromuscular blocking agents during a procedure requires specific authorisation from the Secretary of State. The precise level of expertise in anaesthesia required will be assessed by the inspector who advises the Secretary of State on such applications. The degree of expertise required will thus be tailored to fit the individual circumstances and of course in a number of cases where the agent is only used to affect a small area of the animal no anaesthetic is needed. I should emphasise that of course in no circumstances will the use of these agents be allowed in place of an anaesthetic.

By contrast, the proposed amendments insert a rigid requirement for an anaesthetist to be present, with a single level of qualification applied to all the possible circumstances. I believe this would provide no more protection for the animals involved than they will receive under the Government's proposals which I have outlined, and there would be a considerable drawback in the unnecessarily high demands which would be made on highly skilled staff. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel that his amendment is not necessary, will recognise that proper safeguards do exist and that he can withdraw his amendment.

I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that explanation. I recognise that certainly my amendment goes too far as it at present stands. I should like to take it away and read what the Minister has said, and talk it over with various people to see whether I think anything rather less far-reaching would need to be brought forward at a later stage; but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 essentially go together.

§Amendment No. 57: Page 12, line 25, at end insert—
("and(c) no member shall be appointed who is opposed to the objects of the Act,")

§
I put these down because I wished to emphasise that I believe that the composition of the Animal Procedures Committee is probably the correct one. The purpose of this amendment is essentially to emphasise that its main purpose is to provide informed advice on welfare and science to the Secretary of State. My purpose is to ensure that the Animal Procedures Committee
765
represents the middle ground in these matters and that its members are appointed for their own qualifications and not because they represent some particular interest. I should be as sorry to see in the committee a scientist who was not concerned with animal welfare as an animal-lover who believed that animal experiments should be stopped forthwith.

§
If the procedures committee is to provide the Secretary of State with the advice that he needs, all the members of the committee should be aware of and concerned about the likely adverse effects on the animals and the benefits likely to accrue as a result of the proposed programme of research. The concern of all members should be to make—and I quote from the preamble to the Bill—
provision for the protection of animals used for experimental … purposes",
and not to abolish the use of animals for experiments for scientific purposes. I beg to move.

We shall be coming in a moment to an amendment that I have put down with regard to the make-up of the committee. But I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and I think that this is a very worthwhile amendment.

I am afraid that I am not happy with this amendment. I am not entirely clear about the "objects of the Act" to which the amendment refers. But in any case it seems to me extremely undesirable that, presumably, some sort of test should be applied by the Secretary of State which would involve asking people in detail what were their views about certain subjects before the Secretary of State was able to appoint them. What position the Secretary of State would be left in if somebody changed his mind when he saw in detail how the Act was working, I am not sure. Presumably, such a person would be forced to resign from the committee, if he told the Secretary of State that he had changed his mind. If he did not tell the Secretary of State that he had changed his mind, the Secretary of State would be breaking the law. I think that the amendment is a bit of a nonsense.

I believe I am not the only person in your Lordships' House who does not believe that animals should be used for experimental purposes. I believe that it is morally wrong and indefensible and I said as much at Second Reading. But I hope that has not stopped me or others who hold that view to a greater or lesser extent from contributing to the debates we have had on this Bill and trying to make it a better piece of legislation. There are clearly those who believe that there is no moral objection to using animals in experimentation, and they have taken part in the debates on the Bill and tried to make it a better piece of legislation as well. If we can do that in this House on this Bill, it is a little arrogant for us to assume that it will not be possible for people who hold strongly different moral perspectives on the use of animals for experiments and other abuses of animals to play a constructive part in the committee in the future.

The Earl of Halsbury

I cannot agree with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. Anyone opposed to the objects of the Act
766
would simply constitute a saboteur, if he was sitting with a blocking power on this committee. It is for Parliament, this House and the other House, to decide whether or not this is to be the law, and, if it is decided that this should be the law, then to appoint someone who will sabotage the Act, as it were, would make a complete nonsense. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in a moment of introspection might consider what has been happening to his own honourable friends and his party when they have been infiltrated by Militant. Militant anti-vivisectionists who infiltratred this Act would be just as difficult to deal with as the noble Lord's colleagues have found.

I have reservations about this amendment, because we have been insisting throughout on the discretion of the Home Secretary. The noble Lord the Minister has not agreed to amendments which alter "may" to "shall" because he has again and again reiterated the need for the discretion of the Secretary of State. It seems to me that this committee is being appointed by the Secretary of State and that his discretion should be unfettered in this respect if his discretion is unfettered in the other respects which we have considered and have not been allowed to change to "shall" instead of "may".

I sympathise with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, as I hope he sympathised with my sentiments when I said I felt that the Secretary of State "should" do something, rather than "might" do something. But, if the spirit of the whole Bill is to leave things to the discretion of the Secretary of State, then I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Selkirk

I agree that this is a most cumbersome amendment which I do not think we ought to impose on the Home Secretary. There are those who think vivisection should be abolished and those who think we should not waste too much money on anaesthetics. There are the two groups which are violently opposed and you will never find out who they are.

This amendment is about the objects of the Bill. Let us just see what are the objects of the Bill. We find them in the Long Title. It is,
An Act to make new provision for the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes".
The Bill is not concerned with whether they ought to be used for experimental purposes; it is for their protection when they are so used, and I cannot believe that anybody would object to that.

This amendment goes some way to allay one's fears that the discussions in the Animal Procedures Committee might accept too readily the assumptions in favour of laboratory users. To that extent I welcome it. But there are difficulties with the amendment. What are the objects of the Bill? I am sure that we shall hear more about that when we come to Amendment No. 62. Having given the amendment a qualified acceptance, I am very much more in sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, which I think is Amendment No. 58.

I agree entirely with the idea which underlies the noble Lord's amendment, but I am quite convinced that it would be inappropriate to include it in the Bill. I shall endeavour to explain why.

I say straightaway that there is no likelihood of the Secretary of State ever appointing to the Animal Procedures Committee someone who is opposed to the objects of the legislation. I am not talking about my right honourable friend the present Home Secretary: I am speaking for any Home Secretary of any party, even if it does have Militant in it. That point was raised on my right.

Clearly, to do so would be to defeat the objects of the committee itself. I have some doubts on the practicality of the idea, however one assesses a person's attitude. What of people who disagree with some aspects of the Act but nevertheless have a considerable contribution to make on others—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett? I suggest to your Lordships that there is already a provision to achieve the purpose of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian; there is no need to place a further requirement on the Secretary of State.

What is important is that there should be a balance of expertise and a balance of viewpoints on the committee. Clause 19 provides for that balance. A majority of scientists say that a full range of expert opinion is available, but with the number of current or recent licence holders limited to at most no more than half the membership. As well as the legally qualified members specified in Clause 19 there will be other lay representatives, including, as now, members of animal welfare groups. They, like all other members of the committee, have a valuable contribution to make, and they have already made it in the existing advisory committee. In short, it is intended to do what we said in the second White Paper would be done—to appoint a committee which combines scientific eminence with a recognised concern for animals.

While I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, for having given your Lordships the opportunity to consider this important point, I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that it is neither necessary nor in any way desirable to include these words in the Bill, and that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

I have listened to the arguments, and especially the arguments of the right reverend Prelate. I was delighted to see his conversion to the doctrine of the Secretary of State's discretion. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

§Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 12, line 28, after ("1876") insert ("and so that the interests of laboratory users and animal welfare are equally represented")

§
The noble Lord said: Successive Governments have recognised that in the field of animal experimentation there are two major public interests: the legitimate interest of science, health and industry, and the interest of animal welfare.

§
There are quite clearly a numberof Members of this Committee, and a large number of the public, who would say that the two could be absolutely identical, that these two interests need not clash. I and at least two or three other Members of the Committee do not believe that that is necessarily true. We believe that there are here two different paradigms of thinking that clash.

§
For the purposes of this Bill and, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, for the purposes of the immediate good that it will do, we are prepared to forsake exposition of our particular world view, of our particular paradigm, in order not to take up the time of the Committee, though I hesitate to promise not to make a speech on Third Reading on the subject, and maybe one or two other noble Lords will feel the same need after having endured this Committee stage and the Report stage.

§
Having said that, in a highly flexible system such as that being proposed in the Bill much will depend on how the new law will be administered and who influences its administration; both public interests should be fairly represented. The Government recognise that, and the noble Lord the Minister, in what he has just said, has gone a long way to meet my point in commenting on the make-up of the committee. It is clearly not good enough to pack the Animal Procedures Committee with one side or the other. Clearly the people who are involved in experimenting should not be judge and jury in their own cause.

§
This amendment does not exclude the possibility of a lay element on the committee. All it seeks is equal representation from the two expert interest groups. That could mean, for instance, 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. from each interest group, with the rest being lay members; but it must be fairly balanced.

§
Again, I believe that among certain of the scientists represented tonight in this Committee there will be a temptation to think that their attitude to these matters is the norm. It so happened that I was looking through my research library this morning and I came across an interesting comparison, a similar case—research by Professor Stephen Cotgrove into the question of the attitudes of industrialists, ecologists and ordinary citizens towards pollution and other problems of that nature in the countryside.

§
Professor Cotgrove undertook very careful research into people's views. One of his findings was that although the ecologists clearly represented an extreme and the industrialists clearly represented an extreme, and neither thought they were actually extreme—if your Lordships follow me—nevertheless the view of the general public was much nearer to that of the ecologists than it was to that of the industrialists. That slightly surprising finding may be duplicated here, where those of us who are very specifically concerned with animal welfare may find that we are nearer to the position of the general public or that they are nearer to our position than to that of the scientists.

§
When any noble Lords who wish to speak have done so and the Minister has replied, I intend to withdraw the amendment. I am clear that it should not go on the statute book as it is, but I think that it makes a valid point which is worth putting on the record and worth the Government's reply. I beg to move.

If the amendment has been tabled just to get a statement and to put a point of view on the record I think some of the rest of your Lordships should put their views on the record, too; namely, I do not think it is the case that people who are laboratory users and people who are concerned with animal welfare are separately identifiable as different groups. I do not believe that they are antipathetic and can be marshalled on one side or the other. I do not believe that they are diametrically opposed.

Many laboratory users are interested in animal welfare. Many people who are interested in animal welfare are laboratory users. It would be a ridiculous categorisation of people to try this sort of thing in regard to an advisory committee. These advisory committees depend for their success, and for their effect on public opinion, on the good sense with which they are manned and the good sense with which they then do their work and issue guidance. In all the committees I have ever known it has always been left to the discretion of the Home Secretary or the Minister at the time to provide that sort of balance which gives the committee its credibility and its effectiveness.

I honestly and deeply resent from the point of view of scientists or pharmaceutical workers the implication in this amendment that in some way they are separate from and antipathetic to the animal welfare lobby.

The Earl of Selkirk

I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I do not think that we should tie the Home Secretary's hands too closely. Indeed, I rather think that they are too closely tied already. I would be inclined to modify the position. One obvious source which I suggest should be brought in is, say, a professor of animal behaviour, or people in that class of work. They do not readily fall into either of the categories. I ask the Government to look at this seriously to see whether too much has not been specified already in this regard.

We must trust the Home Secretary. It is a difficult decision to make. People should be appointed who, frankly, are not too closely and personally involved in whatever side of the question it may be, but who are profoundly interested in ensuring that this work is done in the spirit of the Bill.

I should like to put a somewhat different viewpoint. I would not wish in any way to distinguish laboratory users from those who are conerned with animal welfare, but there are lay people who have thought deeply on these matters, and who indeed have written on ethical philosophy with particular reference to animals, who would make an excellent lay contribution in such a committee.

Your Lordships may well know that within the Church our endeavours are greatly helped by having lay members—those who are not experts in the actual practice of certain aspects—on our committees. I think that this committee would be greatly strengthened if it could have such people as members. I would not wish to go by the words of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, any more than I think he would—and I think the word "equally" is a little unfortunate—but I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will take seriously the suggestion that we
770
might have within the Bill some such phrase so that the interests of animal welfare are fully and properly represented and allow the possible inclusion of that kind of lay person. Such an inclusion would allay any doubts which the general public may have, perhaps in their ignorance, about the proper constitution of such a committee.

Perhaps I may just make one very quick point. I do not support the amendment, though I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that it is an important point to raise. I should just like to say to my noble friend that while many people who work in laboratories may be concerned, as he puts it, for animal welfare, nevertheless there are two distinct points of view—and there are people in the middle as well. There are those people who believe that animal experiments are justified and those who believe that they are not. I see that my noble friend is shaking his head.

I rose only because I wanted to make a different point; otherwise I should have been wasting your Lordships' time, with due respect. Those two different points of view exist. I oppose this amendment because we hope that this Bill will become an Act and will last for a long period of time. I hope, too, that eventually there will be enough alternatives to the use of animals in experiments and sufficiently strong public opinion against the use of animals in experiments for such experiments virtually to come to an end. At that stage it will be necessary to have far more than half the people on the Animal Procedures Committee who do not believe that animals should be used in experiments at all, and this amendment would then be restrictive.

The Animal Procedures Committee will certainly have an important role to play under the proposed new system of control. It is therefore quite right that we should give the most careful consideration to the membership of this committee, and I am glad that this amendment has given us the opportunity to do so.

For many years now a non-statutory body, the Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments, has provided successive Home Secretaries with expert and helpful advice on the subject of animal experimentation. The majority of the members have a scientific, veterinary or medical background. There are also representatives of animal welfare interests and members with a deep experience of ethical and moral questions—the sort of questions about which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham was concerned.

Our experience of the admirable work of the present committee has proved to us, if proof were needed, that individuals with varying backgrounds can work together harmoniously and productively; it has also proved that individuals cannot be typecast. Distinguished scientists and clinicians do not live and work in a moral vacuum. They are well able to reflect upon delicate ethical and moral issues. Similarly, non-
771
scientists can give penetrating scrutiny to scientific assumptions and ideas.

The right reverend Prelate suggested that we should include something about the interests of animal welfare. I shall say to the right reverend Prelate that I should like to study his remarks. I do not want to commit myself in any way at the moment, but I should like to study his remarks and see whether there may be something in them which will be of use in the Bill. But I should not like to be held to that without seriously considering his remarks.

The amendment tries to introduce into the composition of the Animal Procedures Committee a predetermined balance of the scientific and animal welfare interests involved. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, suggested that there was some difference between the two of them and that they could somehow exist separately. I myself certainly do not believe that that is the case. I do not believe either that a balance is achievable in the way that the noble Lord wishes it to be; nor do I believe that it is necessarily desirable. I do not think it is possible to identify and weigh the likely contributions of members of the committee in such a way as to achieve the suggested balance. Because of the nature of the subject the committee will need a good measure of scientific expertise, but we shall continue to appoint scientists who also have other perspectives and views to contribute. I hope also that we can continue to obtain the broad range of skill and thought supplied by non-scientists, and I believe that this approach is right and is the most obviously workable one.

I am glad the Minister said that he would consider the suggestion of the right reverend Prelate. It seemed to me to mix in well with the ingredients of the membership of the committee. Not only would a lay member create the balance that he suggests: he may also see issues in a purely common sense way, more easily related to the thoughts of the general public.

Subsection (9) states:
The Secretary of State may also defray any other expenses of the Committee".
Does that include secretariat and office expenses, or is it simply the personal expenses of the committee?

I do not think I can immediately answer that. Subsection (9) says:
The Secretary of State may also defray any other expenses of the Committee".
Subsection (8) says that he may:
make payments to the chairman by way of remuneration".
I think that it means all expenses. If I am wrong, I shall let my noble friend know.

The Earl of Selkirk

There must be a secretariat, a telephone and an office; otherwise, it will be a useless body.

§Amendment No. 61: Page 13, line 23, leave out from ("it") to end of line 24.

§
This is an amendment which I might move to any Bill, whether or not it is about animal procedures. When we have these high-powered committees it is as well to give them the power to publish. I do not think that anything is gained by making it dependent on the permission of the Secretary of State. We know that, whereas the ideal Secretary of State—the platonic Secretary of State who all Ministers have in their minds when they speak from the Front Bench—would never be cowardly enough to try to stop something being published, in the past Secretaries of State have tried to stop things being published which were for the general interest. Having put such a high-powered committee together and taken immense trouble with it, it is worthwhile giving it the powers to publish whether or not the Secretary of State wants it. I beg to move.

I support the amendment, but I wonder whether Clause 20(1) requires clarification. The animals committee can offer advice when it is sought by the Secretary of State, but can it also offer advice when it is not asked? That is my first question.

Under subsection (4) the committee may promote research. Is it anticipated that the committee will be its own research body; and, if so, what funds will be available to it?

The Earl of Selkirk

Will the committee have access to and see the inspectors' reports? I do not differ from what the noble Lord said. The clause is fairly clear, but I should like to know the answer to that question. Secondly, to what extent will they have access to laboratories and elsewhere should they so desire this?

I am rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, say that this is the sort of facility that he would like to grant any Secretary of State under any piece of similar legislation. I do not think that this is an acceptable position in which to place any Secretary of State. The existing wording of Clause 20(1) of the Bill gives the committee scope to investigate matters which it has suggested to the Secretary of State provided that he agrees. The committee can also investigate matters put directly to it by the Secretary of State. This represents, I think, a reasonable balance of power.

The committee can press the Secretary of State, but he retains ultimate control over the work undertaken—work that he finances and that is
773
undertaken in order to advise him. Even then, the committee is not finished. Clause 20(5) provides that each year the committee must make a report to the Secretary of State who, in turn, must lay the report before Parliament. In the unlikely event that it was necessary, the committee could, by this means, notify Parliament of its disquiet.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was concerned about publication. I can tell him that the Secretary of State cannot stop the committee publishing its views. That is contained in Clause 20(5). The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me four questions, one of which was about funds and research. The committee can propose research. The Home Secretary finances it if he can afford it. The noble Lord asked whether or not the committee can offer advice where it is not asked to do so. I believe that I have covered that in the central part of my reply.

As for the committee being able to see the inspectors' reports, inspectors will address meetings when necessary. Visits to laboratories will be arranged for the committee, and I have no doubt at all that the committee will need to be kept fully abreast of all the conditions and types of work that are carried out in laboratories. They will need to be familiar with the way in which the inspectors work. I do not believe that it will be necessary for them specifically to see those reports. I understand the importance attached to the independent advice that the Animal Procedures Committee provide—this is very much the tone of the debate—but this amendment would create a most unusual and unworkable relationship between the Secretary of State and the committee. I do not honestly see that either side would benefit. I hope that the noble Lord will see the force of the argument and will withdraw the amendment.

I am astonished at the noble Lord's reply. I had assumed that the answer was going to be that the committee had power to do this anyhow. This is an advisory committee first of all. It is not a committee carrying out instructions on the Secretary of State's behalf in an executive capacity. It is there as a group of independent scientists, of other experts and of those with a particular interest in the subject to give the Home Secretary advice in a very technical and very controversial area.

The noble Lord is saying that because the Secretary of State pays the expenses of this committee, and other things, it is unreasonable for the committee to look around and to give the Secretary of State advice on something unless the Home Secretary has said, "OK—you can give me advice". One begins to ask what is the point of having an advisory committee at all. It must surely be the case that the advisory committee should have power to investigate and to consider anything that comes within its general terms of reference without having to run to the Home Secretary first and ask his permission, which, as I now understand it, is what the Bill says that it would have to do. The noble Lord says that this would create an impossible relationship between the Home Secretary and the committee. Surely, quite the reverse! In my experience, most advisory committees, set up by Government and funded by Government—and,
774
indeed, some large quangos that have executive as well as advisory functions—are free to give advice within the remit of the legislation that sets them up.

11 p.m.

This committee is now being established by Act of Parliament. If I may say so to the noble Lord, it seems to me that he is looking at the committee as if it was still the informal committee without clear terms of reference, without statutory authority, which the department has been used to working with in the past. But this is a different ball game. It is a statutory committee with statutory terms of reference. The statute covers the kinds of people and the sorts of interest which are represented on it.

I would urge the noble Lord to have another think about this. I think it would be quite intolerable if the committee were not free to decide for itself what areas it wanted to investigate. It is then for the Secretary of State to decide whether he listens to it or not. He still has that discretion, after all.

While I agree with practically every word that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, nevertheless I am reassured by the Minister's reminder that Clause 20(5) has a safeguard. It has the backstop that the committee shall make a report on its activities and that the Secretary of State shall lay copies of the report before Parliament. Therefore, there is a safeguard.

The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who obviously feels passionately on this subject, may want to put something down at Report stage, but for the moment—

Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment I want to make one more point. I think at least two other noble Lords wanted to say something. I want simply to say to the noble Lord that the suggestion that an advisory committee will issue an annual report to Parliament in which it lists all the things that the Home Secretary has not let it investigate, and that this will lead to a happy or constructive relationship between the advisory committee and the Home Secretary, is clearly not right.

I think that the noble Lord must have a rather more realistic understanding of the relationship that is likely to exist between the committee and the Secretary of State. It is delving into the realms of fantasy when he suggests that the committee will not be able to undertake the kind of work which he envisages, when, as we have said, the committee will make a report which will stand before Parliament, and since in any case the Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament.

However, on the more operational day-to-day administration of the business—if I can put it that way—the Secretary of State must in the end be able to limit the subject matter which the committee investigates. But, of course, the Secretary of State will normally accept the committee's suggestions about the subjects that it is proposing to the Secretary of State. I think that this is quite logical and I do not see, with the safeguards built into this clause in the way that the
775
noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has described, that Parliament—to whom the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible—need in any way fear that the Animal Procedures Committee will be inhibited in the work that it will want to carry out.

If the committee makes a report and lists the number of things which the Secretary of State has not allowed it to do there will be an almighty row. It seems to me that that is the most that one can hope for; and it will happen.

Unless anyone wishes to object to my withdrawing this amendment and takes this to a Division, may I beg leave to withdraw the amendment?

§Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 13, line 27, leave out ("protection of animals against avoidable suffering") and insert ("need to reduce, and where practical eliminate, the use of animals in regulated procedures.")

§
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the remit of the Animal Procedures Committee. I attach a great deal of importance to the wording in Clause 20(2), where the committee is asked to balance two matters. I am avoiding the suggestion that these might be competing considerations in case my noble friend jumps up to tell me that everyone interested in the legitimate requirements of science is also by definition interested in the protection of animals against avoidable suffering. I hope that we can take that as read.

§
Nevertheless, there are two matters which the committee have to balance. I must say I do not think at the moment that the balance is right. I also do not think that my amendment gets it entirely right, and therefore I shall not be pressing it. Indeed, I intend to withdraw it.

§
However, I must say to the Government that, while they have tried very hard to get a balance between—as it is put in the Bill—
the legitimate requirements of science and industry",
and the protection and welfare of animals, I do not think that the wording is right. There is a need to recognise that those who are concerned about experiments carried out on animals are not just concerned to minimise the suffering that the animals undergo; they are also concerned to reduce the number of animals on whom experiments are performed. There is a dual concern.

§
My worry about the Bill as a whole is that in the terms of reference of the Animal Procedures Committee only one of the two aspects of the worries of those of us who oppose animals being used in experiments is currently mentioned. I do not think that that is acceptable. It is as though, for example, the legitimate requirements of science were mentioned but there was no mention of industry; or as though the legitimate requirements of research were mentioned but there was no mention of the legitimate requirements of testing and safety.

§
On the animal welfare side—if I may characterise it inaccurately in that way—half of the interest has been omitted from the terms of reference. Although I think
776
that what I have done wrong with my amendment is to leave out the words:
the protection of animals against avoidable suffering
which should remain in the provision—I accept that that is one matter, at least, which I have got wrong—I nevertheless think that there is an overwhelming need for some reference, as regards the area which the Animal Procedures Committee must look at, to the need to keep under review opportunities to reduce and eliminate the use of animals in experimental procedures.

§
Perhaps I may draw an analogy with a debate which we had on the Food and Environment Protection Bill about the use of pesticides in the countryside. The Government's initial terms of reference for the advisory committee—incidentally, an advisory committee free to undertake such work as it saw fit and not subject to any conditions requiring the Secretary of State's approval; but we shall come back to that matter on Report—were quite restricted and involved looking at safety of products and so on. However, your Lordships' House saw fit to extend the terms so that the advisory committee could keep under review the developments of alternatives to pesticides. The idea of keeping the field under review and the opportunity to move forward and make changes in general terms should be written into the terms of reference of the Animal Procedures Committee. I hope that that general point of view—and I do not pretend that the words of my amendment are right—will find favour with your Lordships. I beg to move.

The Earl of Selkirk

I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said. Speaking as a total non-scientist, I believe that we have seen science turning itself over in the last 30, 40 or 50 years and we are left wondering about the next step it will take. It seems to be perfectly fair to take the view that much that is now done with animals will be done by other means in the next 50 years. This matter should be borne in mind and should be mentioned somewhere in the Bill. That is all that I ask. I am sure that it is important.

I should like to support what has just been said. This principle has found a place within the guidelines which will become the code of practice. A project licence shall not be issued unelss there can be satisfaction that it cannot be done by any other means. So the principle is actually implicit in the code of practice. It seems to me a great pity that such a vital principle does not find any place within the Bill. We are almost selling ourselves short in this respect. As it is in the code of practice, will not the noble Lord the Minister give consideration to the possibility of including it in the Bill?

I, too, shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this. As the right reverend Prelate said, it is implicit in the whole Bill, so why not include the words "need to reduce" the number of animals used in experimentation in the Bill? Certainly one has the feeling that this is very much one of the objectives of the Bill and, indeed, it is taking place anyhow. If it is at all possible, why not include this reassurance?

Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that I was the pioneer on this question of having a statutory advisory body. I thought that it was the absolute clue to establishing good relations between the public, the experimenter and the Government. It has taken me six years to persuade the Government to agree to have a statutory body whose findings they cannot suppress because they would be part of an annual report made to Parliament.

However, in claiming to have been the pioneer in this, I shall not wreck my own handiwork by the wrong managerial structure. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendment Nos. 63 and 64 as well, because they illustrate my point.

§Amendment No. 63: Page 13, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) The Committee or any member of the Committee may at any time inspect any application for a personal licence, any application for a project licence and any application for a certificate under secton 7, or any such licence or certificate once granted by the Secretary of State.").

§Amendment No. 64: Page 13, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) The Committee or any member of the Committee may visit places where regulated procedures are carried out for the purpose of determining whether those procedures are authorised by the requisite licences and whether the conditions of those licences are being complied with, and visit designated establisments for the purpose of determining whether the conditions of the certificates in respect of those establishments are being complied with.").

I have not moved Amendment Nos. 63 and 64 and I do not intend to at this stage.

The Earl of Halsbury

In that case, perhaps I may make the general managerial point that the Committee must not do the work of the inspectorate. That would be an entirely wrong way to approach its work. The inspectors are the people who report direct to the Minister on how the Act is being administered. That is not the purpose of the advisory committee.

With regard to Amendment No. 62 in particular, I was always taught that the general imports the particular and, therefore, "the protection of animals against avoidable suffering", which is the essential part of the Bill, of course imports the:
need to reduce and, where practical eliminate, the use of animals in regulated procedures".
If you include the general term, I do not think that you need the particular term, because the:
need to reduce and, where practical eliminate, the use of animals in regulated procedures
is included in the "protection of animals against avoidable suffering".

The amendment adds nothing to the provisions already in the Bill which it seeks to replace, but instead has the effect of narrowing and weakening the formulation which describes the task of the Animal Procedures Committee. Perhaps I may refer the Committee to Clause 20(2), which states:
In its consideration of any matter the Committee shall have regard both to the legitimate requirements of science and industry and to the protection of animals against avoidable suffering".778
Quite simply, is that not what the Bill is about? It seems to me to be so and it also seems to be very clearly expressed. It sets out the principle of balance to which your Lordships have referred many times in these debates. It says that the Animal Procedures Committee shall observe and promote that principle in discharging its duties. The expression:
the protection of animals against avoidable suffering
is a very wide-ranging one indeed. It covers the avoidance of the unnecessary use of animals in procedures, using fewer animals, using less severe procedures, alleviating suffering so far as possible where suffering has to be inflicted, and whenever possible using alternatives to animals, something which my noble friend Lord Selkirk looks forward to, as I do.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says only some of that and it does so in more words. It is confined to replacing animals in experiments and reducing the numbers used. It does not touch upon the idea of reducing the level of suffering of animals which are used in procedures, the improved use of analgesia, improved standards of care, protection against disease or accident. All these things are other factors the Animal Procedures Committee will need to be concerned about when it,
has regard to the protection of animals against avoidable suffering".
I commend the original wording to your Lordships.

I am not asking the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to repeat some of the points he made but I should like to study them to see whether there is any scope for amplifying Clause 22. There may be from what he said, but I do not think it is strictly within the ambit of the wording that he has on the Marshalled List, and that is why it is probably best to examine closely what he said. I can assure the noble Lord that if there is any give here I shall try to find it, and I hope that gives him the encouragement he needs.

We are talking about two different things. The Minister is talking about the protection of animals against avoidable suffering, and the amendment talks about eliminating, where practical, the use of animals in experiments. They are two different things. Unless we can have some words on the lines of the amendment in this clause, we shall be very disappointed.

I am going to accept what the noble Lord has said, and I know that everyone wants to get on, but the point that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has just made was the point I wanted to make. This answers the point of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. We have been told during the course of these debates that there are regulated procedures which do not involve suffering; that there will be animals which are used as controls, for example; there will be animals which are anaesthetised. Maybe the administration of the anaesthetic involves suffering, but as I remember it the noble Earl described to us last week how you anaesthetise a mouse, or a rat, with the express purpose of convincing your Lordships' Committee that no suffering was involved.

779
Simply to have in the Bill the need to protect animals against avoidable suffering does not cover all the points that my amendment covers. I accept that I should not take out the general words in the Bill. I admit that I have recognised that since I tabled the amendment, and I agree with the noble Lord about that; but I think there is a separate point, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said, about the need to reduce and, where possible, eliminate the use of animals in regulated procedures, because some of them at least will be used in regulated procedures where no suffering, or only a minimal amount of suffering, is involved. There is another point which goes a little further than the general. If the noble Lord would look at that, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment.

I shall look at what has been said by both the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I do not entirely follow the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on what he said, because the use of alternatives is an aspect of avoiding animal suffering. That is where the noble Lord is perhaps failing to grasp this particular matter. Having said that, I shall look at it and see what can be done, but without commitment.

The use of alternatives will not reduce avoidable suffering if the use of animals does not involve avoidable suffering. That is the point I was making. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said last week that it was possible to anaesthetise a mouse and then use it in an experimental procedure and kill it without the mouse suffering at all. There will be no suffering involved, and therefore to use an alternative would not avoid any suffering.

The suggestion is that there is a requirement for the Animal Procedures Committee to look at alternatives and to reduce the number of animals used in experiments, and that that should be added to the words already in there. That is the point I hope the Minister will look at. I am grateful to him for making that offer because I attach particular importance to this. I am sure that a genuine attempt has been made to get the balance right here, and I am equally certain, having listened to what has been said on my amendment, that the balance is at present not right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§
I am hoping that the noble Lord will tell me that it is not necessary to put this in the Bill because if any member of the committee wanted to look at an application for a personal licence or a project licence or to visit somewhere that was open to inspection by the Home Office inspectorate no obstacle would be put in his way. Perhaps I may leave it as short as that for the time being. I beg to move.

The Animal Procedures Committee is intended to be an advisory body. It says that quite clearly in Clause 20(1). It will not have any executive functions under the Act; those will go to the inspector. The idea of the committee carrying out spot checks on applications for licences and certificates, or on licences and certificates themselves, is wholly inappropriate. Equally unacceptable is the idea of licences and applications existing as a sort of research library for members of the committee to browse in, without regard to the background or context of what they are looking at and the extent to which this work may impede or prevent research work being started. Of course my right honourable friend will furnish the committee with the information it needs to carry out its functions under the Act. But this amendment goes far beyond this. I must confess that, even after hearing the noble Lord's brief explanation, I cannot see how the proposal is supposed to help the committee or the Secretary of State on the operation of the Bill itself.

On top of that the amendment would give the committee, or any member of it, carte blanche to bring the administration of the Act to a complete halt. There are at present 20,000 or so licensees, 11,000 of them active. Most will need to be relicensed under the Act. There are some 500 registered places, virtually all of which are likely to need to seek certificates under the Act as scientific procedure establishments. There will be designated breeding and supplying establishments as well. The amendment is a bureaucratic nightmare and I trust that the noble Lord will not pursue it.

I am afraid that I am not at all reassured by all that. If that is the effect of the amendment, I apologise, but I had not intended that the committee, by asking to look at a project or personal licence application, should stop the processing of that application. I am sure that there are photocopies in the Home Office and it would be possible to let the committee have a copy while the original was being processed. I did not hear the noble Lord make any suggestions as to why the members of the committee could not visit establishments for which licences had been issued. That seems to me to be quite a reasonable power to give an advisory committee.

One of the functions of the advisory committee is to advise the Home Secretary on how this legislation is working. How this legislation is working will depend on how the Home Office inspectorate implements it. We all acknowledge that, and everyone has acknowledged that a large amount of responsibility and a great deal of trust are being given to the inspectorate. I do not see how the advisory committee will be in a position to give advice to the Home Secretary unless they are able to go to the places that the Home Office inspectors go to and see the papers that the Home Office inspectors are seeing. I am not suggesting that they should see every one. We went through that debate last week and it did not seem to me that there was any great objection to them seeing those bits of paper that they particularly wanted to see. I was not aware that there was a suggestion that things were being kept secret from the advisory committee, that they were not to be allowed into establishments which the Home Office inspectors are looking at, and that it would cause terrible disruption if they were able to see
781
the detail of the project or personal licence applications, which seemed to be what the noble Lord was suggesting. I shall have another look tomorrow or the next day at what he said and consider whether to return to this. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§
The noble Lord said: I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord the Minister very warmly for the fact that he said earlier that he would accept this amendment. I am grateful. I hope we can come back to Amendment No. 67. I had a difficulty similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in understanding why that was not acceptable. But I am really very grateful to the noble Lord for indicating that he would accept this amendment. I beg to move.

§Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 14, line 5, at end insert—("( ) In all criminal and civil proceedings any such code shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of such a code appears to the court or tribunal conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.")

§
The noble Lord said: These words are lifted verbatim from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984, in the hope that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Codes of practice are becoming increasingly popular, it seems, in connection with legislation. It would seem right that codes of practice should not have the full force of statutory authority but should be taken seriously, and that people should disregard codes of practice at their peril. The Highway Code is an example of the kind of thing I am speaking about, and there are other examples too.

§
It seems right that, if you are in trouble before either a criminal or a civil court and you have failed to observe the codes of practice, that evidence (for what it is worth) can be given in court. And of course it works the other way as well. You will be entitled to say, "But I observed the code of practice religiously, and so what are you complaining of in my conduct?" That seems to be the right way to consider and approach the codes of practice, and I hope that the precedent of last year's Act is acceptable and that this amendment will be acceptable in this Bill. I beg to move.

I hope the noble Lord the Minister will take this suggestion very seriously. At Second Reading I did mention the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, in which a similar provision is made in respect of those who breed and nurture animals for consumption. I
782
really cannot see any ethical ground on which we should have a provision for animals in one Act—that is, breeding for consumption—and not have it when they are being used for animal experiments. It suggests that the laboratory users are superior people to those who are engaged in intensive agriculture, and I do not think that we should make such a suggestion. That is not to impugn laboratory users in any way, but animals are animals, whether they are being bred for consumption or whether they are being used in order to increase knowledge and help human beings through experiments. I cannot see any ethical case for having the provision in one Act and refusing to have it in another. For this reason—a slightly different point from that made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—I do hope that the noble Lord the Minister will give this very serious consideration.

I should like to support the right reverend Prelate. I also had read the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, and the relevant wording is to be found in Section 3 of that Act. The Act provides for the welfare of livestock, and to that end it provides that the code of conduct can be relied on in proceedings. So we have in the 1968 Act a very relevant precedent, unless the Minister can point out that the 1968 Act has not worked out in practice. All the evidence known to me shows that it has done so. As the Bill itself is not a comprehensive code dealing with regulating procedures, and deals only with the framework, we think that if the code is to bite, it must be connected to that Act. We think that the 1968 Act gives the Minister a very sound precedent.

I must confess that I am impressed by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, the right reverend Prelate, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. Therefore, I am willing to consider the possible incorporation of an amendment of this kind into the Bill. But I should like to have a little time to assess the technical aspects of this change, after which I shall report to your Lordships. In view of that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

I am very encouraged by that reply. As soon as we come back from the Christmas Recess, we are to have a debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, devoted entirely to the place of codes of practice in legislation. After that debate we shall all be very much wiser and I am sure that we shall be in a position to agree a suitable amendment to this Bill on the Report stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§
The noble Lord said: I do not want to make a speech about this amendment. It looks to me as though the subsection is couched in the alternative, when it is concerned with two things which ought to be added together. It is such a small drafting point. I beg to move.

This amendment affects Clause 21(4). Clause 21(4) as worded in the Bill before us provides that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament any information published by him under Clause 21, and any codes issued or approved by him under that clause. That is the effect of Clause 21(4). The Secretary of State has no discretion in the matter, once he has published, issued or approved the material in question. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, does not alter this position. I believe that the wording contained in the Bill achieves the desired effect, and that the amendment would diminish the clarity of the wording. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

§Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 15, line 18, after ("discloses") insert ("to the general public").

§
The noble Lord said: With this amendment it might be to the advantage of your Lordships to discuss also my Amendment No. 73 and Amendment No. 74, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett:

§
If someone is fulfilling a function under the new Act—for instance, as a member of the Animal Procedures Committee—and he or she learns of acts of cruelty, then it seems to me that he or she must have the unfettered right to inform others in authority of that situation. Of course, technical information, or commercially sensitive information, is another matter and we agree that it must be protected. But we must not carry this protection so far that we limit the possibility of what we all want, which is that the whole subject and facts about animal experimentation shall become more open and less furtive. Let us encourage as much information as possible and ensure that where there are real problems concerning any misbehaviour they are reported. Let us protect merely that which is technical and that which is commercial. I beg to move.

I think it is sensible to take Amendment No.74 with this amendment because it covers the same point. I am very concerned about this provision in Clause 24 which would make it very difficult for somebody on the advisory committee to talk about the work that the advisory committee was doing. I should be interested to know if the Government can provide any precedents for treating an advisory committee in this way. It seems to involve a lack of trust. I do not know which noble Lord is to
784
reply but I hope he will be able to take this point on board.

It seems to imply a lack of trust in the members whom the Home Secretary has himself appointed to the committee which goes beyond belief. I find it extraordinary. Under the Food and Environment Protection Act where there is a similar advisory committee advising the Secretary of State (it is appointed by the Secretary of State) and dealing with a subject involving a great deal of commercial confidentiality—possibly a great deal more than is likely to be the case under this Bill—Parliament saw fit to put in a totally different type of provision which insisted that information should be made public except where it is commercially sensitive. It strikes me as extraordinary that the Government should have adopted exactly the opposite procedure here of saying that nothing can be made public—and, if it is, you can be sent to gaol for doing it. This is not the way to engender public confidence in this system and I hope that one of the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and I have put down will prove acceptable to the Government.

The Government do not wish people who may fulfil functions under the Bill—whether they are, say, an inspector, another official, an assessor or a member of the Animal Procedures Committee—to be anxious about the disclosure of information. However, as Clause 24 is currently drafted there is no need to be anxious. This is not a provision which is intended to apply to every word uttered, every fact acquired. People will of course be expected to behave with decorum and a due sense of discretion. But only when information is given on a specific in-confidence basis will the rigours of Clause 24 be relevant.

The first amendment therefore attempts to tackle an insubstantial problem. In addition the use of the term "the general public" in the amendment would create considerable problems if enacted. We would need a clear definition of the general public, one which is common to all the persons involved. It is surely not sensible to provide a heavy penalty for disclosure if the fact of disclosure will have to be determined in relation to a concept such as "the general public". Every person here will have his own view of what is the general public.

Though this amendment has been directed at possible leaks of information to the general public, the major concern, and the one which promoted inclusion of the clause in the Bill, is that commercially valuable material will be obtained by rival organisations or individuals rather than the general public. I believe that Clause 24 as it stands will achieve a satisfactory balance, enabling important and sensitive information of all types to be protected, while not endangering the liberty of individuals or encroaching on their normal behaviour.

The second amendment also aims to restrict the application of Clause 24. I am not sure how it would be possible to differentiate technical material from non-technical for the purposes of the Bill. But even if this were possible I think it would be an unfortunate restriction of the application of the clause. There is much non-technical information which is of great
785
importance. On the occasions when sensitive material has to be protected—be it personal, commercial, technical, or any other description—we must ensure that Clause 24 can take effect and without the possibility of a dispute over terminology.

We entirely agree that nobody must be inhibited from reporting an offence to the prosecuting authorities. Nor from giving the public as full information as possible, subject to the need to protect confidences. This advisory committee must respect confidences, and similar duties are placed on all the advisory committees under the Medicines Act 1968.

In speaking to the other amendments of this clause put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I referred to the need for the provisions of Clause 24 to cover all types of material that are given in confidence. This amendment would limit the protection of the clause solely to "commercially sensitive" material. I should not be happy to see a situation in which other material—for example, that containing intimate personal details—was not protected, and I view with alarm the prospect of attempting to define "commercial sensitivity".

I stress again that this clause is not intended to be oppressive and it certainly does not impose a code of secrecy on inspectors, assessors or members of the Animal Procedures Committee. It only requires people to maintain reasonable discretion and to appreciate the sensitivity of some of the information to which they may become privy in the course of their duties. Provided that such was necessary, it would not prevent, for example, a lay member of the Animal Procedures Committee from discussing with a scientific acquaintence some particular work that the committee had under review, provided of course that due discretion was observed in the terms and extent of any revelation made. The coverage of the clause as drafted is appropriately unrestricted, and it is clear. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, and as we are discussing my amendment as well, perhaps I may say a word. I must say that I find the noble Viscount's response extraordinarily unconvincing. First, the mind boggles at what intimate personal details would be revealed to the Animal Procedures Committee. I do not imagine that the Home Office inspectorate will be reporting in detail on the sex lives of different research workers, which is what the noble Viscount seemed to be implying. If he has any particular intimate personal details in mind, I shall be happy for him to intervene.

In any event, the noble Viscount's explanation did not seem to me to be at all convincing. I had understood the worry to be the release of commercially sensitive information, or information that would lead to prosecution, but which would in any event be covered by other Acts of Parliament. For example, I assume that all members of the Animal Procedures Committee will be required to sign the Official Secrets Act, and so they will be covered by that Act in any event.

The Government should consider the possibility of saying that the proceedings will be made public, and
786
then insert specific restrictions where they are justified, rather than adopt blanket secrecy with dire threats of prosecution. I am afraid that the noble Viscount did not convince me. I should still be interested to know what intimate personal secrets are to be revealed to the Animal Procedures Committee and which it might be in danger of revealing either to the general public or to the News of the World.

I expressed some doubt about this point on Second Reading, but I have found the noble Viscount's explanation entirely satisfactory. I withdraw my hesitations because I feel that the clause as it stands would be a great deal better than the clause as the amendments suggest it should be.

I want to re-examine this matter. Like the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, I am not happy about it. Equally, I feel that the amendments that I put forward need to be reconsidered and possibly redrafted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§
The noble Lord said: I am concerned that Clause 25(1) as it stands would give a constable on his own the power forcibly to enter a registered laboratory. I am of course concerned that that provision might be used by anti-vivisectionists to generate unjustified intrusions into laboratories, though I do not believe that that is a serious deficiency in the clause as it stands. Were that to happen, I am fairly confident that it would not be allowed to continue for very long.

§
I am much more seriously concerned that harm may come to an unaccompanied constable if he searches laboratories on his own. I particularly have in mind special bacteriological or biological containment laboratories. There could also be substantial problems if constables break in, using force, to a laboratory where animal diseases are studied.

§
Here I must declare an interest in that I have a connection with the Animal Virus Research Institute at Pirbright, and I am conscious of the elaborate decontamination procedures that are required there for personnel going into and coming out of the containment areas. In so far as I am chairman of the governing body of that institute, I have a residual responsibility for disease security there and I would view with grave concern the right of a constable forcibly to enter the disease containment areas with the possibility of the escape of diseases from those areas.

§
I am certainly not concerned to prevent forcible entry by a constable with an inspector, but I believe that the presence of an inspector is an essential safeguard, or at least a very desirable safeguard, in what are bound to be technical matters and what are bound to be circumstances where a constable may not
787
have the necessary information to deal with the hazards which a laboratory may present under the circumstances in which he is searching it.

§
Therefore, I very much hope that the words "or without" may be withdrawn from the Bill, or at least that the noble Lord the Minister will undertake to give more thought to the particular circumstances in which a constable may enter and search without an inspector. I beg to move.

Surely this must be right. A constable without an inspector in an animals laboratory would be very much out of his element and he must surely need the advice and help of an inspector when finding himself in those circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has expressed some concern about the scope of the power in Clause 25 for a constable to enter and search premises on warrant. I should perhaps say first of all that we do not envisage this power being used except on very rare occasions. It is, however, possible to conceive of exceptional circumstances in which a very serious, deliberate infringement of the law was known to be taking place, and in which the power of entry could be necessary to prevent suffering by a protected animal. It is only right to guard against that possibility, remote though it may be.

The power in Clause 25 is wider than that in the present law, in that it will apply to designated establishments. Nothing sinister should be read into that, and I can assure your Lordships that the Government have no intention of departing from the system of inspection by consent (if I may so put it) which has worked effectively for the last hundred years. The reason for the change is simply that in the extreme circumstances in which the power might be invoked there would be little point in having distinctions as to the status of the place where the alleged offence was proceeding.

I now turn to the particular point raised by this amendment. The noble Lord is unhappy about the prospect of a constable entering premises without the company of an inspector. I agree that it is unlikely to be helpful to a police officer to enter premises without the benefit of an inspector's specialist knowledge which he would need in order to detect a possible offence. But, in the extreme circumstances to which I have referred, it is possible that the urgency of the situation or the unavailability of the inspector for any reason might make it imperative for a constable to act alone, which he could do appropriately if, for example, he had explicit and detailed information on the offence being committed.

For example, the inspector might be ill; there might be problems of geography; there might be problems of weather and road conditions; the inspector might be on holiday; his car might have broken down. There are various reasons why the inspector might not be available when the matter is urgent. In such a situation, the urgent execution of an appropriate warrant should not be prevented.

788
I am aware of other points which have been raised on Clause 25. It has been suggested that the power might be open to abuse and in particular that warrants might be issued as a result of mischievous or irresponsible applications. I can reassure your Lordships about that. It is not the practice of magistrates to issue warrants willy nilly to anyone who comes to them alleging an offence. It is most unlikely that they would do so other than on the application of a police officer. Even if some uncrupulous person were successfully to apply for a warrant, the police would be under no obligation to act upon it. We shall be issuing guidance to chief officers of police about the operation of the Bill when it becomes law, and we shall ensure that the points which the noble Lord has raised on this clause are dealt with in that.

I hope that I have succeeded in allaying anxiety about this provision. We are in general agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and will certainly cover his points in the guidance to the police. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising these points. However, I would urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment to this clause.

I must say that I think I am more convinced by the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, than by the Minister's explanations. I understood what he said about the danger to the constable owing to the nature of the experiments which were taking place, and I felt that if, as the Minister said, such an occurrence were so rare, then surely an inspector could be made available. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Adrian will be quite happy with the Minister's explanation, in which case of course I shall be too—but up to now I am not sure that I am.

The Earl of Halsbury

I am little disturbed by the complacency in the statement by the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson. Magistrates and police officers have no insights into biological and bacteriological dangers. I find it appalling to think that with 17 inspectors—I believe that there are 17 at the moment—at the Home Office, not one of them could be inspanned in a case of emergency. I hope that if the noble Viscount is to reconsider this matter, on the assumption perhaps that my noble friend Lord Adrian will not push it to a Division, he will include the possibility of the Home Office appointing a local consultant to the police in such a case. There could be a provision in this Bill for him to do that brought up on Report. That is one of the points which I should like an assurance from the noble Viscount that he will consider, because I really was somewhat worried by the note of complacency.

I find my particular concerns about the particular place that I mentioned not altogether allayed, and I should like to ask whether the advice to the police with respect to especially sensitive institutions of that kind would be made public or at least would be available to the institutions concerned. I think that in giving local advice to the local police forces, it would be extremely important that the particular circumstances of the particular institutions should be made known and, in a sense, agreed between the institutions and the police.

I am sorry that I was unable to allay the concern and the worries of my noble friend
789
Lord Adrian about this matter. I can say that all the points that have been made so far by noble Lords and by the noble Baroness will be in the guidance to the police and will be taken into account. I do not believe that we shall be able to make it public—no, I am sorry, advice to the police will be put in the Library of the House. Apart from that, I do not think I can say anything more.

§Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 16, line 4, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 7.

§
The noble Lord said: Clause 26 contains a provision which would remove the opportunity for people to take prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 unless they had the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is one thing to suggest that for offences under the Bill the consent of the DPP should be required, and I have not attempted in my amendment to change that. I can see that with a system of Home Office inspectors, an advisory committee, and so on, there might be some justification for going through the DPP before a prosecution is taken under the Bill. But I can see no justification whatsoever for removing the right to take private prosecutions under the 1911 Act unless it is to avoid a recurrence of a well-known recent prosecution taken by private individuals under that Act. If that is the motive, that is shameful, and I cannot believe that it is.

§
I hope that the amendment is acceptable. It will leave existing rights as they stand under previous Acts of Parliament but will ensure that under the Bill the consent of the DPP is required before a prosecution is taken. I beg to move.

I am grateful. I fear that I may touch on them because that was to be the grouping. Amendment No. 76 removes the requirement that the DPP should bring or consent to any prosecution of an offence under Section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 alleged to have been committed on an animal in a designated establishment. That is wholly unacceptable.

Through Clause 22(5) the Bill provides substantially enhanced penalties for such offences. That is a feature of the widening scope of the Home Secretary's control over what is done to animals in designated establishments. The 1876 Act applied only to animals under experiment. Under the Bill, the care of all animals in these establishments will be controlled by reasons and
790
conditions in licences and certificates of designation. Because of that, and because of the scope, which I am sure the noble Lord will accept exists, for vexatious or ill-informed prosecutions, there must be a counter-balancing protection, which is provided by the role given to the DPP. To remove that, as the amendment proposes, would mean that the enhanced penalty provision could no longer be supported.

Having said that I may touch on the other amendments, there is no need to do so. But I believe that the noble Lord is proposing something that is quite unacceptable.

I am worried about that. As the noble Lord will know, the most recent prosecution under the 1911 Act was that taken against the Royal College of Surgeons in respect of the experimental farm, the Buxton Brown Farm, in Kent. As I understand it, in that case the animal concerned was not covered by the previous Act. It was a monkey used for breeding purposes. It is possible that animals at designated establishments may not be covered by the Bill. It will be possible for a designated establishment which is a research establishment and not licensed for breeding and supply also to have animals on the premises which are used for breeding purposes, and I think I am right in saying that they would not be covered by the Bill.

12 midnight.

I think I am also right in saying that a breeding and supply establishment could have animals on the premises that are kept for different purposes. It could also, for example, be a boarding kennel, which we discussed last week, as well as a breeding and supply establishment. It could be supplying animals for the pet trade as well as for licensed procedures. In those circumstances, at least some of the animals on the premises would not be covered by the Act, and some would.

There will be some confusion about this. Some animals may be covered at some time by this Bill and not at other times. To remove the possibility of private prosecutions being brought under the 1911 Act for any animals at a designated establishment must be wrong. It may be that the noble Lord has an argument for saying that the right of private prosecution should not remain in respect of animals covered by licences issued under this Bill. But that is rather a different matter. After all, a designated establishment may have more than one thing going on within it. It may be that a prosecution should be brought under the 1911 Act by other individuals for matters not directly concerned with this Bill. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give me an answer on that point.

I am not sure that I can go into quite the detail that the noble Lord would like me to. The fact is that the safeguard has been extended in this way partly because of the need to guard against what I know the noble Lord acknowledges to be the possibility of these vexatious or ill-informed prosecutions. That is where the important aspect of this protection really lies and what the noble Lord seeks to remove. I can certainly study the noble Lord's remarks and see whether or not he has a point, and I
791
can correspond with him. I do not believe that I can argue off the top of my head the particular point that the noble Lord raised just now.

§
It seems to me that, as attention may well be drawn to abuses under this Bill as a result of scientific papers being published, and as scientific papers take a number of years to be published, a limit of three years is too short and one nearer to five years would be more sensible. I know, in case the noble Lord intends to raise it, that scientific papers do not in themselves provide evidence for a court case. I understand that they are simply hearsay and cannot be used in evidence. Nevertheless, publication in scientific papers is often used by those concerned with animal welfare to pinpoint abuses that have taken place.

§
On the other side, it is often claimed that we should not be worried about what happens in experiments because all of it will become clear when the scientific paper is published. I do not know the average time for publication of a scientific paper in this field. I dare say there are others in your Lordships' House who would have a better idea. I would guess that three years is pretty good going and that some papers would take rather longer to be published. In any event, it seems that some will take at least three years or more and that in these circumstances a time limit of five years would be more appropriate. I beg to move.

The period of three years is the common period for an extension of time limits for prosecutions. The noble Lord wants to increase that period in both instances to five years. Whatever the reasons for the noble Lord wishing to do so, he would succeed, were his amendment to be accepted, in departing in a major way from current practice. I do not see why this Bill concerning animals, and all that goes with it, should be quite so special as to need a major departure. The amendment would propose a substantial and unacceptable change in the balance of prosecution arrangements set out in Clause 25, as well as being unusual. For that reason I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

On the issue of the length of time of the scientific work it is, of course, like a piece of string that is almost variously lengthened. But on the issue of publication the period from the completion of a piece of scientific work to the appearance of a paper would be much more like a year; very seldom would it be much longer than that. Of course, a piece of work may have gone on and the project may have been allowed to proceed for longer than that. I think it is also the case with regard to anything published in this country
792
that if it has been done in this country, it has had to be authorised by a licence and it will in future be authorised by a project licence and a personal licence.

It is reassuring to hear that scientific papers have been published more quickly than I had realised. Perhaps this is not typical. I am interested in the comments that the noble Lord made. I can see some explanation for three years if it is a standard period. I still think that there is an argument for extending it, but I shall consider what the noble Lord said and for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§Lord Beaumont of Whitley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 79:
Page 19, line 27, after ("fishes") insert ("and by the immediate ex-sanguination or immediate destruction of the brain in rodents and birds.")

With the permission of the Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has had to leave the Chamber. He asked me, on his behalf and with the leave of the Committee, to indicate that his remaining amendments are not be moved.